DEBIPRASAD SENGUPTA, JYOTESH BANERJEE ( 1 ) ON an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure, this Court by an order dated 21. 02. 05 disposed of the same and directed the learned Magistrate to take up the matter for consideration of the prayer for bail of the petitioner afresh after ascertaining the fact whether charge-sheet was submitted beyond the statutory period or not and whether the accused petitioner was entitled to get statutory bail or not. The matter was thereafter, taken up by the learned Magistrate and by an order dated 28. 02. 05, such prayer for bail was again rejected by the learned magistrate. ( 2 ) THE learned Advocate on behalf of the accused-petitioner has now come up before this Court with an application for bail and his main contention is that the accused-petitioner is entitled to get statutory bail as the investigation could not be completed and the charge-sheet could not be submitted within the statutory period as prescribed under Section 167 (2)cr. C. P. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate appearing forthe accused-jjetitioner submits before this Court that the present petitioner was produced before the learned magistrate on 20. 10. 04 and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioner and four other accused persons on 8. 1. 05. The charge-sheet was forwarded by the Officer-in-Charge. Mayureswar P. S. on the same date i. e. 8. 01. 05 and the same was forwarded by Circle Inspector of Police on 22. 01. 05 and on the same date i. e. 22. 01. 05, on the basis of charge-sheet, cognizance of offence was also taken under sections 365/367/376 (2) (g) of I. P. C. against five accused persons including the present petitioner. ( 4 ) IT is the contention of the learned Advocate of the accused-petitioner that the statutory period of investigation expired on 18. 01. 05 but since such charge-sheet could not be submitted before the learned Magistrate within the statutory period, the accused-petitioner is entitled to get statutory bail. But we are unable to accept such contention. It appears that charge-sheet was submitted on 8/1/05 by the Investigating Officer and the same was forwarded by the Circle Inspector of Police on 22/01/05 and on the same date, cognizance of offence was taken. But we are unable to accept such contention. It appears that charge-sheet was submitted on 8/1/05 by the Investigating Officer and the same was forwarded by the Circle Inspector of Police on 22/01/05 and on the same date, cognizance of offence was taken. Even if, it is taken to be true that the statutory period expired on 18/1/05, it appears from the order sheet of the learned Magistrate that accused petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate on 12/01/05 and he was remanded to jail custody till 25/1/05. ( 5 ) IT further appears that on expiry of the statutory period, no prayer for bail was made on behalf of the accused person nor the learned Advocate of the accused-petitioner submitted before the Court any prayer for bail. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the accused-petitioner was not entitled to get statutory bail as because on completion of statutory period, neither the accused person filed any application for bail nor the learned advocate of the accused-petitioner made oral prayer before the learned magistrate for such bail. In such circumstances, the accused-petitioner cannot claim his indefeasible right to be enlarge on statutory bail since on completion of statutory period, no such prayer for bail was made. After hearing the learned Advocates of the respective parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.