JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - The petitioner, who is arrested in connection with the alleged commission of an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, has moved this Court for grant of bail, his application for bail having been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela. 2. In course of hearing, Sri S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been arrested on 14.5.97 and no charge-sheet having been filed within 60 days and till date, he is entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has filed an affidavit accompanied with a copy of the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh rejecting his subsequent application for his release under Section .167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has referred to a decision of this Court in Bijoj Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa (1993) 6 OCR 714 and II (1997 CCR 90 (DB) Om Prakash Gabbar v. State of Punjab to content that the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail, the charge sheet having not been filed within 60 days, as contemplated under Section 167 (a) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. In the facts of the case, the question is whether the case is covered under the proviso (a) (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 167.0 the Criminal Procedure Code or not and as to whether the prescribe time for maximum period of detention in custody would be 90 day or 60 days. Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. may be quoted hereunder: "167(2)- The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time to author the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days' the whole, and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case commit it for trial, and considers further detention u necessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that- (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days. If he is satisfied that equate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate sh authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding: (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for a term of not than ten years. (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter; (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this Section unless the accused is produced before him; (c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police." 4. On a reading of the aforesaid provision, there is no room for doubt that a Magistrate is empowered to authorise detention of an accused for a period beyond 15 days, if he is satisfied that adequate reasons exist. But no Magistrate is empowered or competent to authorise detention in custody for a period exceeding 90 days, where investigation relates to an offence punishable for imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. However, if the investigation relates to any other offence, the detention period shall be 60 days where after, the accused persons shall be entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared and furnishes the bail bond. 5. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been alleged of commission of an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. For the present purpose I may confine to the punishment under Section 307, I.P.C. which prescribes the higher period on the alleged offences. Section 307 contains two parts and separate sets of punishment are prescribed. Section 307, I.P.C. may be quoted hereunder: "307. For the present purpose I may confine to the punishment under Section 307, I.P.C. which prescribes the higher period on the alleged offences. Section 307 contains two parts and separate sets of punishment are prescribed. Section 307, I.P.C. may be quoted hereunder: "307. Attempt to murder: Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstance that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned. Attempt by life convicts:- When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death." 6. On a reading of the aforesaid provision, if the attempt to murder is without causing any hurt, the maximum punishment prescribed may extend to 10 years, whereas under the second part of Section 307, I.P.C., if the attempt is coupled with hurt, then the maximum punishment may extend to imprisonment for life, but it shall not be less than 10 years. In the case of Bijoy Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa (surpa), this Court while interpreting the punishment prescribed under first part of Section 392, I.P.C., where the punishment may extend to 10 years, this Court has held that when the punishment prescribed may extend to 10 years, the proviso (a)(i) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. is inapplicable and 60 days period as contemplated in proviso (a)(ii) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. would be applicable and the prescribed period would be 60 days. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Om Prakash Gabbar v. State of Punjab (supra) have also taken the view that two different expressions that is upto 10 years and not less than 10 years used in statute deal with different situation and in the of fence wherein the "sentence upto 10 years" imprisonment is provided the challan has to be filed within 60 days and in case where the sentence provided is not less than 10 years the challan has to be filed within 90 days. On a reference to the aforesaid decisions, the law on the point is quite clear and unambiguous. 7. Thus, in a case, where the investigation is in progress in respect of an allegation for an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or not less than 10 years, the proviso (a)(i) of Subsection (2) of Section 167 is applicable, but where the offence alleged for which investigation is made, is punishable with an imprisonment for a period which may extend to 10 years etc., the proviso (a)(ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 is applicable and the maximum authorised period of detention would be 60 days. In such a case, the final form had to be filed within 60 days and otherwise, the detention becomes illegal. 8. On a perusal of the materials on record and having regard to the submissions of the learned Addl. Standing Counsel that the allegation is covered under the first part of Section 307, I.P.C. and therefore, the proviso (a)(ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. is applicable, the final form if not filed within 60 days, the accused is entitled to bail, provided he complies with the formality. In that view of the matter, the investigation against the petitioner being for an alleged offence punishable under the first part of Section 307, I.P.C. the detention beyond 60 days is impermissible and the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in terms of Section 167(a)(ii) Cr. P.C. 9. In that view of the matter, let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum Rs. 15,000/- with two sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh in G.R.Case No. 698 of 1997 in connection with plant Site P.S. Case No. 139 dated 29.4.97 10. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. Final Result : Allowed