Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. Petitioners were arrested on 30.8.2000. They were produced before the Court on 31.8.2000. 60 days expired on 29.10.2000. Challan has not been presented even till today. In view of Section 167(2)(a)(iii) of the Cr.P.C. the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. This view of mine finds support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Om Parkash Gabbar v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) RCR 193. After considering the relevant provisions, the interpretation given by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sohan Lal v. State, 1991 Allahabad Criminal Reports 383, is accepted as the correct view of the law with regard to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. In Sohan Lals case (supra) it was observed as under :- "Section 167(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in police custody, beyond the period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist from doing so. But total period of detention shall not exceed ninety days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death/imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. If the investigation relates to any other offence, the total period of detention shall not exceed sixty days. The words "imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" mean that the maximum punishment shall be ten years. The term "not less than ten years" is not to be confused with the terms "upto ten years". In a case where the maximum punishment is upto ten years, the period of detention, which is permissible under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is only sixty days." 2. Mr. S.K. Pippat appearing for the complainant has, however, submitted that the challan has not been presented deliberately by the police officials as they are conniving with the petitioners. 3. I am of the considered view that since the petitioners are technically entitled to bail under the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C. the merits of the case need not be considered. The complainant shall be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings with regard to cancellation of bail, if permitted by law. 3. I am of the considered view that since the petitioners are technically entitled to bail under the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C. the merits of the case need not be considered. The complainant shall be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings with regard to cancellation of bail, if permitted by law. At present, the petitioners have to be released on bail in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, petitioners are allowed bail to the satisfaction of the C.J.M./Duty Magistrate, Faridabad.