JUDGMENT This order shall dispose of the application filed by the accused-applicant under section 439/167 CrPC for grant of bail. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that the present applicant was arrested on 4.10.98 in connection with Crime No. 181/98 registered at Police Station. Pipliamandi District Mandsaur under section 8/18 NDPS Act. The applicant on production before the Court concerned, remanded to custody on 5.10.98. No challan was filed by the police concerned till 4th January, 1999. On 3rd Jan. 99 the applicant filed an application before the Special Court for releasing him on bail under section 167(2) of the CrPC as the Prosecution failed to file challan within a statutory period of 90 days. The said application was considered by the Court on 5th January, 1999 and dismissed the same holding that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of section 167(2) CrPC. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this petition before the Court for grant of bail. The law is well settled on the point that the Statutory period as stated in sub-section (i) and (ii) of section 167 (2) of the CrPC shall begin to run from the date or order of remand and not from the earlier date when the accused was attested. The same principle was laid down by the Hon. Apex Court in case of Chaganti Satyanarayana and Ors. v. State of A.P. [ AIR 1986 SC 2130 ]. In case of State of M.P. v. Rustam and Others [1995 Supp. (3) SCC 221] the Apex Court also held that while calculating the period of limitation the day on which the accused was remanded to judicial custody should be excluded and the day on which challan filed in Court should be included. Applying the aforesaid principle to the case on hand, it emerged that the challan was filed on 91st day i.e. on 4.1.99 from the date of the order of remand. From the facts of the present case it also emerged that the applicant filed the application for his release on compulsive bail under section 167(2) of the CrPC on 3rd January 1999 i.e. before expiry of the statutory period of 90 days from the date of remand order. As such the application so filed by the applicant was pre-matured and not maintainable under the said provisions of compulsive bail. As such the application so filed by the applicant was pre-matured and not maintainable under the said provisions of compulsive bail. In case of Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra [ 1994(5) SCC 410 ] it is held by the Apex Court that non-completion of investigation within specified period indefeasible right accrues to the accused to be released on bail and as such right arises from the time of default and continues till filing of the challan but does not survive thereafter." In case of H.V. Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, [ 1995 CrLJ 517 ] the Apex Court also held that the application for compulsive bail is necessary and required to be filed on expiry of the statutory period. The Court held as under : "We are not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that on the expiry of the period during which investigation is required to be completed under section 20(4) TADA read with S. 167 of the Code, the Court must release the accused on bail on its own motion even without any application from an accused person on his offering to furnish bail. In our opinion as an accused is required to make application if he wishes to be released on bail on account of the 'default' of investigating/prosecuting agencies and once an application is made the Court should issue a notice to the public prosecutor." The Court further held that : "The issuance of notice would avoid the possibility of an accused obtaining an order of bail under the 'default' clause by either deliberately or inadvertently concealing certain facts and would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It would, therefore, serve the ends of justice of both sides are heard on a petition for grant of bail on account of the prosecution's 'default'." In the present case, no such application for compulsive bail under section 167(2) CrPC was filed by the applicant after expiry of statutory period of90 days and before challan was filed and as such trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant for compulsive bail under section 167(2) of the CrPC. The prayer made by the applicant on the aforesaid ground in this Court stands rejected for the reasons stated above. The prayer made by the applicant on the aforesaid ground in this Court stands rejected for the reasons stated above. At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, accused applicant shall be at liberty to file fresh application for grant of bail on the grounds stated in section 437/439 CrPC before appropriate forum. With the aforesaid observation, the application filed by the applicant stands finally disposed of.