JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Hari Kishan, learned PP for the State and have also perused the relevant documents placed before me. 2. Besides arguing the bail on merits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case it has been contended on his behalf that he was entitled to be enlarged on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. It is submitted that he was arrested on 31.7.2004 and was remanded to judicial custody on the same day in connection with the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. On the expiry of 60 days, he made an application for his release on bail on 36.9.2004, but the same was kept pending and no order was immediately passed thereon. The charge-sheet was filed on 27.10.2004. It is contended that Section 302 Indian Penal Code has been added by the I.O. in the charge-sheet without there being any valid basis for the same to save himself from the departmental action which could have been taken against him for not filing the charge-sheet within the prescribed period of 60 days applicable to the case. 3. Learned PP has opposed the bail application. He has contended that the charge-sheet has been filed for the offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code and in view of the nature of alleged offences, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made at the bar and have perused the relevant documents placed before me. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner was arrested vide arrest memo dated 31.7.2004 in connection with the offences u/ss. 498-A and 306 Indian Penal Code and the offence u/s 306 Indian Penal Code its punishable with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years besides fine. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner was arrested vide arrest memo dated 31.7.2004 in connection with the offences u/ss. 498-A and 306 Indian Penal Code and the offence u/s 306 Indian Penal Code its punishable with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years besides fine. Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) Cr.P. provides that the Magistrate may authorise detention of an accused otherwise then in the custody of the police beyond the period of 15 days if he is satisfied that adequate ground exists for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise detention of accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding (i) 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and (ii) 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Since, the petitioner was arrested in connection with offence u/ss. 498-A and 306 IPC, the aforesaid clause (ii) appears to be applicable to the instant case. 6. As indicated above, admittedly to the charge-sheet in the instant case has been filed after the expiry of 60 days. So he is entitled to be enlarged on bail under the aforesaid provision. 7. In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Hari Kishan s/o Bihari Lal shall be released on bail in FIR No. 163/04 PS Nangalrajavtan Distt. Dausa on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to appear before that court on all dates of hearing until conclusion of the trial. *******