Judgment ( 1. ) ARGUMENTS heard. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) in respect of Crime No. 283/07 registered at P. S. Amiliya, distt. Sidhi for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the IPC. The applicants were formally arrested in this case on 29. 01. 2008 at District Jail, Satna where they were detained in connection with Crime No. 17/2008 registered at p. S. Nayagaon Distt, Satna for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 353 read with S. 149 of the IPC, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and section 13 read with S. 11 of the M. P. Dakaiti and Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra adhiniyam, 1981. ( 2. ) THE allegations against the applicants may be summarized as under :- (i) They were amongst the persons involved in abduction of Yogendra Pandey, a building contractor and his companion abhayraj Patel, a mechanic, for ransom on 22. 12. 2007 at dudhmalia Road near village Kaudora falling within the local jurisdiction of P. S. Amilia Distt. Sidhi. Thereafter, they were taken in a Bolero Jeep, bearing registration no. MP-19-C-3311, to an unknown destination where they were handed over to another band of criminals headed by Dilip Singh Patel, who, being equipped with firearms, took them to place inside jungle located in Banda District of U. P. and then, telephonically made a demand from sachchidanand, elder brother of Yogendra, for a sum of Rs. 2 crores as ransom for their release. (ii) In the night intervening 3rd and 4th Jan. 2008, upon information received at P. S. Dabhoura Distt. Rewa that a gang of dacoits led by Radhe Patel was spotted near Railway Bridge in the jungle of Magdor, police force under control and supervision of G. R. Meena, the then DIG, proceeded towards the spot. The dacoits were surrounded by the police party and in the exchange of fire, one of them namely Udaybhan Patel was killed but other members of the gang including the applicants were able to flee away leaving Yogendra Pandey and Abhayraj Patel. Ultimately, the applicants were apprehended in connection with Crime No. 17/ 08 (supra) and were remanded to judicial custody. ( 3. Ultimately, the applicants were apprehended in connection with Crime No. 17/ 08 (supra) and were remanded to judicial custody. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has contended that they are entitled to compulsive bail in the wake of proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 167 of the code (hereinafter referred to as the proviso), as after their arrest, though formal, the matter was not investigated into within the permissible period. ( 4. ) WHILE refuting the contention, learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the proviso is not of any avail to the applicants in view of the fact that they were first produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction viz. JMFC, Sidhi on 29. 08. 2008 only. ( 5. ) A bare perusal of the order-dated 12. 08. 2008 would reveal that the learned asj had proceeded to reject applicants bail application primarily on the ground that they were not in custody in connection with the case inasmuch as both of them, after the formal arrest, were not produced before the nearest Magistrate or the Magistrate having jurisdiction. While expressing his dismay and anguish at the non-action on the part of the Investigating Officer, learned Judge had returned the case diary with the direction to apprise the Superintendent of Police of the unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is, therefore, apparent that the Magistrate was requested to issue a production warrant for securing presence of the applicants for the purpose of investigation in the light of the observation made by the ASJ only. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Manoj vs. State of M. P. AIR 1999 SC 1403 wherein the question as to whether the benefit of compulsive bail can be denied for want of authorization of custody of the accused after his formal arrest was answered in the negative. The illuminating observations may be reproduced as under "the police officer who conducts investigation cannot obviate the legal obligation to perform two requisites if he knows that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours after the arrest of the accused. One requisite is, to transmit a copy of the case-diary to the nearest Judicial Magistrate. The other is, to forward the accused to such Magistrate simultaneously. One requisite is, to transmit a copy of the case-diary to the nearest Judicial Magistrate. The other is, to forward the accused to such Magistrate simultaneously. The only exceptional ground on which the police officer can avoid producing the arrested person before such Magistrate is when the officer concerned is satisfied that there are no grounds for believing that the information or accusation was well founded. In such a case, the accused must be released from custody to which he was interred pursuant to the arrest. If the police officer is forbidden from keeping an arrested person beyond twenty-four hours without order of a Magistrate, what should happen to the arrested person after the said period? it is a constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established in law. Close to its heels the Constitution directs that the person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest. The only time permitted by Article 22 of the Constitution to be excluded from the said period of 24 hours is "the time necessary for going from the place of arrest to the court of the Magistrate". Only under two contingencies can the said direction be obviated. One is when the person arrested is an "enemy alien". Second is when the arrest is under any law for preventive detention. In all other cases the constitution has prohibited peremptorily that "no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate", ( 7. ) ACCORDINGLY, the formal arrest of the applicants made on 29. 01. 2008 has become otiose. ( 8. ) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. It is true that the applicants were produced before JMFC, Sidhi for the first time on 29. 08. 2008 but the fact remains that the first order requiring the Jail Superintendent to produce them was issued on 14. 08. 2008. Thereafter, a period of 90 days has already elapsed. ( 9. ) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. It is true that the applicants were produced before JMFC, Sidhi for the first time on 29. 08. 2008 but the fact remains that the first order requiring the Jail Superintendent to produce them was issued on 14. 08. 2008. Thereafter, a period of 90 days has already elapsed. ( 9. ) AS explained by the Supreme Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453 - "the accused has an indefeasible right to be released on bail when investigation is not complete within the specified period - In order to avail of such right, accused is only required to file ah application before the Magistrate seeking release on bail alleging that no challan has been filed within the period prescribed and he is prepared to offer bail on being directed by the Magistrate" ( 10. ) THUS, viewed from any angle, the applicants deserve to be released on bail under the proviso. ( 11. ) IT is, therefore, directed that each one of applicants namely Anjay Singh and Chandra Pratap Singh @ Chhotu shall be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two solvent and local sureties of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the CJM, Sidhi for his appearance during committal proceedings as well as during trial. Order accordingly.