GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) IN moving this application for bail the learned Advocate for the petitioner inter alia argues that although in this case charge-sheet has been submitted within 90 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner-accused under various Sections including Section 302, I. P. C. , yet the said charge-sheet cannot be treated as a valid charge-sheet under Section 173 (2), Cr. P. C. inasmuch as neither any copy of any forensic report has been applied to the petitioner accused nor any forensic report has been forwarded under Sub-Section (5) of Section 173, Cr. P. C. along with the charge-sheet although certain articles were sent for forensic examination and report during investigation. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that unless the charge-sheet is accompanied by all the documents REFERRED TO in Sub-Section (5) of Section 173 Cr. P. C. the charge-sheet cannot be treated as a valid charge-sheet and if the charge-sheet cannot be treated as valid charge-sheet it will have to be held that the investigation has not been completed and as such the accused is entitled to the benefit of statutory bail under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. for non-completion of investigation within the statutory period. ( 2 ) IN this connection the learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon the Single Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. C. Venkatareddy v. State of A. P. , 1994 Cri LJ 257. It has been held by the learned Single judge in the said decision inter alia that the police report (charge-sheet)) under Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. is not complete unless it is accompanied by the material papers (statements etc.) as contemplated under Section 173 (5) Cr. P. C. and that if the investigation is not completed either within 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, and if the police report (charge-sheet) is not filed in complete form within the stipulated periods, the accused shall have absolute right for being released on bail subject to their readiness for furnishing sureties. The learned Advocate for the petitioner in this case relies upon the said propositions. The learned Advocate for the petitioner in this case relies upon the said propositions. It is argued that since the forensic report has not been forwarded in this case with the charge-sheet, the charge-sheet is therefore incomplete and since the charge-sheet in the case has not been filed in complete form within the statutory period of 90 days, the petitioner-accused is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. It is, however, to be noted here that in the said Andhra Pradesh case the charge-sheet which was filed within the statutory period of 90 days was returned by the Magistrate as there was some deficiency in the charge-sheet. In our present case, however, the charge-sheet which was filed within the statutory period was accepted and not returned by the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate also took cognizance on the charge-sheet. Therefore, unlike the facts involved in the Andhra Pradesh decision, in our present case it cannot be said that there was no charge-sheet till the expiry of this statutory period. In view of this vital factual feature of distinction, it is not necessary for us to examine in this case whether we would have agreed with each and every proposition laid down in the said Single Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Be that as it may, in our present case the charge-sheet was submitted within the statutory period and the same was accepted (and not returned) by the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate took cognizance on the same. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner has also REFERRED TO the decision of the Supreme Court in Satya Narain v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 506 : (1980 Cri LJ 227 ). In the said decision it was observed (Sic) (by) the Supreme Court in paragraph 10 that the report as envisaged by Section 173 (2) has to be accompanied as required by Sub-Section (5) by all the documents and statements of the witnesses therein mentioned, and one cannot divorce the details which the report must contain as required by Sub-Section (2) from its accompaniments which are required to be submitted under Sub-Section. (5 ). (5 ). In the said decision the Supreme Court however did not deal nor had any occasion to deal with the question as to what will be the consequence if all the documents REFERRED TO in Sub-Section (5) of Section 173 are not forwarded along with the police report submitted under Sub-Section (2) of Section 173 Cr. P. C. and whether exclusion of any such document while submitting the charge-sheet will make the charge-sheet non est or inoperative and illegal. In our present case also we are not required to deal with that question because here the only question required to be decided is whether the charge-sheet should be treated as non-existent simply because no forensic report has been forwarded with the same. ( 4 ) SUB-SECTION (5) of Section 173 Cr. P. C. requires the Investigating Officer to forward to the Magistrate along with the police report all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely and the statements recorded under Section 161 of all persons who the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. Here it is not the case of the petitioner that the charge-sheet was not accompanied by any materials mentioned in Sub-Section (5) of Section 173. In fact he has been supplied with copies of statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. His contention is that no copy of the forensic report has been supplied to him and as a matter of fact no forensic report was also forwarded along with the charge-sheet. In our opinion that will not vitiate the charge-sheet itself. The Sub-Section (5) of Section 173 speaks of the documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely and the statements of witnesses whom the prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses. If the forensic report has not been received by the Investigating Officer by the time he submits the charge-sheet on the basis of the other materials collected during Investigation, there is no compulsion upon the Investigating Officer to withhold the submission of the charge-sheet within the statutory period on the basis of the materials collected against the accused during investigation if he is of the opinion that the materials so far collected would substantiate the case against the accused. The Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance upon a police report will consider whether the materials so far collected by investigation makes out a case against the accused for taking cognizance and if he is so satisfied he is definitely entitled and rather required to take cognizance on the police report. Law provides in Sub-Section (8) of Section 173, Cr. P. C. that if subsequent to the filing of charge-sheet under Sub-Section (2) of Section 173 further evidence is obtained by further investigation, the same also can be pressed into service. In Puskar Malhotra v. State of WB 1995 (1) Cal H. N. 174, it has been observed by this Court that while Section 167 (5) Cr. P. C. safeguards the interest of the accused to ensure that the accused is not required to suffer the ordeal of an unduly prolonged and stale investigation, Section 173 (8) keeps the door open in the interest of justice for entertaining subsequent evidence relevant to the matter collected after submission of the charge-sheet under Section 173 (2 ). It may be that the prosecution in a particular case thinks that it can prove the charge against the accused on the basis of the available evidence collected during investigation even without the aid of any forensic report. The prosecution may also think that if the forensic report is obtained subsequently that may give additional strength to the evidence already collected. It may so happen that if after submission of charge-sheet the forensic report is obtained the same may be forwarded under Sub-Section (8) of Section 173, Cr. P. C. It may also happen in any particular case that for want of forensic report the trial Court may held that the other evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. But all such possibilities are different matters and it cannot be said that if the forensic report is not obtained and forwarded along with the charge-sheet the entire charge-sheet should be thrown away for that reason even if there are other materials in support of the charge-sheet. Such materials may be direct or circumstantial or a combination of both in a. particular case. Therefore in the present case non-availability of the forensic report does not vitiate the charge-sheet which has been filed on the basis of the other materials collected during investigation. Such materials may be direct or circumstantial or a combination of both in a. particular case. Therefore in the present case non-availability of the forensic report does not vitiate the charge-sheet which has been filed on the basis of the other materials collected during investigation. The question whether such other materials in the absence of any forensic report will be sufficient to sustain a conviction in trial is entirely a different matter from the question whether the charge-sheet is based on materials on which the prosecution can invite the Magistrate to take cognisance. In this case the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the basis of the charge-sheet and the materials submitted therewith. There is therefore no question of holding now that the charge-sheet should be treated as non-existent inoperative or invalid. On the other hand we find that the charge-sheet was filed in time and it was accepted by the learned Magistrate. There is therefore no question of granting statutory bail to the accused under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. On mate-rials also we reject the petitioner's prayer for bail. ( 5 ) DEBI PROSAD SIRCAR-I, J: I agree. Petition dismissed.