GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in Cr. No. 144 of 2002 of Panjagutta P. S. (popularly known as pratyusha murder case ) registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 309 I. P. C. or alternatively 306 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE gist of the case against the petitioner according to the remand report is that he and Pratyusha (hereinafter called the deceased ) were in love with each other for the past six years. Though it is acceptable to the mother of the deceased, the mother of the petitioner did not agree for the alliance on account of which, both of them decided to commit suicide and in execution of the same, on 23-2-2002 both of them went in a car, purchased one pesticide bottle, mixed the same in Coke and consumed it. Soon after consuming the said pesticide, wisdom prevailed over them; they suddenly changed their attitude and thought that they should not die. Immediately thereafter, both of them went to care Hospital , Hyderabad, in the Maruthi Car driven by the petitioner where both were treated. In spite of the medical care, the deceased died and fortunately or unfortunately the petitioner survived. ( 3 ) THE learned senior counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner was arrested on 9-3-2002 and was remanded to judicial custody on 11-3-2002 and that the petitioner is entitled for bail as a matter of right as per Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. According to him, an accused person cannot be remanded to judicial custody beyond the period of 90 days. He submits that although the petitioner was released on interim bail during the periods from 27-4-2002 to 2-5-2002 and 17-5-2002 to 17-6-2002, the said period cannot be excluded, as the period of remand of the petitioner has been extended by the learned Magistrate from time to time even during those periods also. His further submission is that the offence alleged against the petitioner would at best attract the ingredients of Section 306 of the I. P. C. and even to attract the provisions of Section 306 I. P. C. , it is contended that, there is no allegation of intentional aiding by the petitioner as contemplated under Section 107 Cr. P. C. and as such, the petitioner is entitled for bail. P. C. and as such, the petitioner is entitled for bail. His last submission is that as the entire investigation is over, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. ( 4 ) THE learned Standing counsel for C. B. I. Sri C. Sadasiva Reddy contended that Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. has no application to the case of the petitioner as he was on interim bail for a period of more than 35 days and, therefore, the period of 90 days has not come to an end. According to him, the entire investigation is over and the charge sheet will be filed in this case as and when the F. S. L. reports are received. In any event, on instructions from his Officers, it is submitted that the charge sheet will be filed before 15th July 2002 and as the charge sheet is yet to be filed in this case, the learned Standing Counsel sought for dismissal of the petition. ( 5 ) IN the light of the above submissions, it is necessary for this court to look into the provisions of Section 167 Cr. P. C. The relevant provisions of Section 167 reads as under:"167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours - (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be competed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer-in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. (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 authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that - (a) the Magistrate may authorize 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 adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorize 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 life or imprisonment for a term of not less 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; " ( 6 ) THE above provision is to be understood in the context it is made. Section 167 of the Code is an enabling provision enabling the accused persons to be released on bail in the event of their arrest and the police not filing the challans or charge sheet within the prescribed period of 90 days. After the arrest of an accused person, there is every possibility of not initiating further action by the police and taking their own time to file the charge sheet and in such a case there is a possibility of the accused persons languishing in jails for unlimited periods without there being any progress in the investigation of the crime. After the arrest of an accused person, there is every possibility of not initiating further action by the police and taking their own time to file the charge sheet and in such a case there is a possibility of the accused persons languishing in jails for unlimited periods without there being any progress in the investigation of the crime. Therefore, so as to provide a safeguard to the accused persons in such situations and as a measure of warning to the investigating agency, Section 167 has been introduced providing that if the accused persons are remanded to judicial custody and no charge sheet or challan is filed within the prescribed period of 90 days, the accused persons are entitled for bail as a matter of right. ( 7 ) IN the light of the safeguards as stated above, it is to be seen as to whether the petitioner herein is in custody for a period of more than 90 days or not. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner produced the docket order maintained by the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pertaining to the petitioner herein. From the above docket sheets, it is noticed that on 11-3-2002, the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate for the first time and he was remanded to judicial custody till 20. 3. 2002. On 20-3-2002, the same was extended till 3-4-2002 and again on 3-4-2002, it was extended till 17-4-2002. On 17-4-2002, the petitioner was produced and the remand was extended till 1-5-2002. On 1-5-2002, though the petitioner was not produced, the remand was extended till 2-5-2002. On 2-5-2002, the endorsement on the docket reads thus: "the accused is permitted to surrender before the court as per the orders of Hon ble High Court in Crl. P. No. 1710/2002 dt. 26-4-2002". The petitioner was remanded on that day to judicial custody till 16-5-2002. On 16-5-2002, the remand was again extended till 30-5-202. On 30-5-2002, though the petitioner was not produced from jail, it was extended till 13-6-2002. On 13-6-2002, the endorsement reads thus: "the accused is on interim bail till 17-6-2002. Memo filed for remand extension. Remand extended till 17-6-2002. " On 17-6-2002, the petitioner surrendered before the court as per the orders of this court in Crl. Petition No. 2135 of 2002 dated 5-6-2002 and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody till 28-6-2002. On 13-6-2002, the endorsement reads thus: "the accused is on interim bail till 17-6-2002. Memo filed for remand extension. Remand extended till 17-6-2002. " On 17-6-2002, the petitioner surrendered before the court as per the orders of this court in Crl. Petition No. 2135 of 2002 dated 5-6-2002 and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody till 28-6-2002. From the record, it is clear that this court by an order dated 26-4-2002 enlarged the petitioner on interim bail and accordingly the petitioner was released on 27-4-2002 and surrendered before the Court on 2-5-2002. Similarly, by another order dated 14-5-2002, the petitioner was enlarged on bail and accordingly he was released on 17-5-2002 and surrendered on 17-6-2002. The question is whether the period during which the petitioner was on interim bail can be treated as judicial custody or not in view of the extension of the remand period by the learned Magistrate. ( 8 ) THE wording used in sub-Section (1) of Section 167 of the Cr. P. C. are -- "any person is arrested and detained in custody". According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the word "arrest" means - "to cause to stop, to stop the course of a person, lay hold upon or apprehend by legal authority; the apprehending of one s person, in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime. " According to the same Dictionary, the word "detention" is defined as "keeping in custody or confinement; keeping from going on or proceeding. " Further, the word "custody" is defined in the said Dictionary thus - "safe keeping, protection; charge, care, guardianship; the keeping of an officer of justice; confinement, imprisonment. " ( 9 ) FROM the above definitions, it is clear that a person is said to be detained in custody only when he is apprehended physically and kept in the custody of any court or any lawful authority and the safeguards under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. are available to such of those persons only. ( 10 ) IN this case, the petitioner was not detained during the aforementioned periods from 27-4-2002 to 2-5-2002 and from 17-5-2002 to 17-6-2002 and he was not in the custody of either the police or the court, as he was enlarged by this court by granting him interim bail. In my considered view, there is no difference between a bail and interim bail . In my considered view, there is no difference between a bail and interim bail . According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the term bail is defined as "the friendly custody of a person otherwise liable to be kept in prison upon security given for his appearance at a time and place assigned, temporary release from imprisonment on finding sureties or security to appear for trial. " From the above definition, it can be implied that by virtue of grant of bail an accused person s movements which are restrained or curtailed by virtue of the arrest and remanding him to judicial custody are relaxed and it gives him back the freedom which he was enjoying prior to his arrest. By virtue of the interim bail granted by this court, the petitioner got back the freedom of movement which he was enjoying prior to his arrest and detention in judicial custody and hence the period during which he was on interim bail cannot be treated as a period of detention. Knowing that the petitioner is on interim bail, the learned Magistrate, without application of mind, extended the remand period of the petitioner even during the period on which the petitioner was on interim bail. But, that does not mean that the petitioner was in judicial custody even during the above period also. As already observed by me, the above period cannot be treated as a period of remand which means judicial custody . Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in judicial remand for a period of more than 90 days or that the petitioner is entitled for bail as a matter of right in view of the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. This view of mine is further fortified by the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in DEVENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF M. P. , 1992 Crl. L. J. 1730. In identical facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge while discussing the scope of Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. , held that:" For acquiring the statutory right as envisaged under S. 167 (2) the condition precedent is that an accused must be in continuous detention in custody of 90/60 days as the case may be. The petittitioner during this period of detention in custody, applied under S. 439 for bail for a few days. P. C. , held that:" For acquiring the statutory right as envisaged under S. 167 (2) the condition precedent is that an accused must be in continuous detention in custody of 90/60 days as the case may be. The petittitioner during this period of detention in custody, applied under S. 439 for bail for a few days. In three Division Bench decisions of this Court in cases of Kishanlal v. State of M. P. , Chandersen v. State of M. P. and Amarsingh v. State of M. P. , 1978 (2) MPWN 171, 172 and 173 respectively, it has been said that bail for a few days or for a limited period can be granted under S. 439 when the accused person is in custody. A court while exercising the discretion of granting bail even for a limited period imposes any condition or conditions under S. 439 (1) (a), then an accused is released from custody under S. 442, Cr. P. C. on execution of bonds. If the conditions are imposed even in a bail for a limited period, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that by the release of the accused person for the limited period on imposing of conditions or complying with the conditions by the accused, his movement was in any way restricted or he was in physical custody of the Court, so as to claim the computation of such period in reckoning the period of 90 days of detention, to acquire the statutory right under proviso (a) to sub-Section (2) of S. 167, Cr. P. C. " ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing discussion, the contention of the learned senior counsel is rejected. ( 12 ) FURTHER, I do not think that it is for this court at this juncture to go into the question whether the offence alleged against the petitioner would attract the provisions of Section 306 I. P. C. or not, as it is for the trial court to come to a conclusion after a full-fledged trial as to whether the offence falls under Section 306 I. P. C. or not. Any view expressed by me on this aspect at this juncture may prejudice the trial. Any view expressed by me on this aspect at this juncture may prejudice the trial. This court is very much conscious of the fact that this is a petition for bail and in this petition the question is whether the petitioner is entitled for bail or not and hence, I do not want to go into the merits or demerits of the said contention at this stage. ( 13 ) COMING to the factual aspect of the matter, the fact remains that the petitioner and the deceased were in love with each other and when the elders did not agree for their marriage, both of them decided to commit suicide and accordingly, they consumed poison; but the deceased died whereas the petitioner survived. Further, even according to the learned Standing Counsel for the C. B. I. , the entire investigation is over and they are awaiting the F. S. L. reports and the moment the F. S. L. reports are received, the charge sheet would be filed in this case. One more important aspect which needs to be mentioned in this case is that during the period on which the petitioner was on interim bail, the petitioner had sincerely co-operated with the investigating agency and nothing is pointed against him by the learned Standing Counsel. In the light of the above circumstances, viz. , that the investigation is over, that the petitioner also tried to commit suicide along with the deceased and he co-operated with the investigating agency when he was enlarged on interim bail and also the fact that the petitioner is in jail for a period of more than 70 days, I feel that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000. 00 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. ( 15 ) IT is further directed that the petitioner shall appear before the investigating agency every day between 8. 00 A. M. and 10. 00 A. M. , until further orders.