ORDER The petitioner is A 1 in Crime NoA8 of2005 of Nuzvid Town Police Station of Krishna District registered for the offence under Section 3941PC. The police after due investigation filed a charge sheet on the file of JFCM, Nuzvid showing A2 to A5 as absconding. The petitioner came to be produced before the learned Magistrate on PT. warrant on 16.1.2007. 2. The petitioner moved Crl.M.P .No. 752 of 2009 before the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking for bail. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, on noticing the fact of the involvement of the petitioner in other crimes proceeded to dismiss the application by an order dated 17th August, 2009. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent- State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to bail under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C since the 72 charge sheet was not filed within 90 days of the remand of the petitioner to judicial custody. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra 2001 Crl.L.J. 1832 = 2001 (3) ALT 20.1. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the charge sheet has been filed on 4.4.2008 and therefore the plea of the petitioner that he is entitled for statutory bail as provided under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C has no substance. 6. A question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court as to at what stage the petitioner can avail default bail as provided under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The majority view of the Supreme Court in that above referred case reads as hereunder: "1. Under sub-section (2) of Section 167, a Magistrate before whom an accused is produced while the police is investigating into the offence can authorize detention of the accused in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole. 2. Under sub-section (2) of Section 167, a Magistrate before whom an accused is produced while the police is investigating into the offence can authorize detention of the accused in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole. 2. Under the proviso to aforesaid Subsection (2) of Section 167, the Magistrate may authorize detention of the accused otherwise than the custody of police for a total period not exceeding 90 days where the investigation relates to offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. 3. On the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case maybe, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnish the bail, as directed by the Magistrate. 4. When an application for bail is filed by an accused for enforcement of his indefeasible right alleged to have been accrued in his favour on account of default on the part of the investigating agency in completion of the investigation within the specified period, the Magistrate/ court must dispose it of forthwith, on being satisfied that in fact the accused has been in custody for the period of 90 days or 60 days, as specified and no charge sheet has been filed by the investigating agency. Such prompt action on the part of the Magistrate/court will not enable the prosecution to frustrate the object of the Act and the legislative mandate of an accused being released on bail on account of the default on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation within the period stipulated. 5. If the accused is unable to furnish bail, as directed by the Magistrate, then the conjoint reading of Explanation I and proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 167, the continued custody of the accused even beyond the specified period in paragraph (a) will not be unauthorised, and therefore, if during that period the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed then the so-called indefeasible right of the accused would stand extinguished. 6. 6. The expression 'if not already availed of used by this Court in Sanjay Duff's case (supra) must be understood to mean when the accused files an application and. is prepared to offer bail on being directed. In other words, on expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a) of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 if the accused files an application for bail and offers also to furnish the bail, on being directed, then it has to be held that the accused has availed of his indefeasible right even though the Court has not considered the said application and has not indicated the terms and conditions of bail, and the accused has not furnished the same. " No material is placed before me that the petitioner has filed any application soon after completion of 90 days of his remand and before filing the charge sheet by invoking Sec.167 (2) of Cr. P. C. Once the accused failed to move an application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C seeking availment of default bail, he cannot be permitted to avail the same after the charge sheet is filed. Indisputably, the police filed the charge sheet on 4.4.2008. Once the charge sheet is filed the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. 7. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C despite the charge sheet being filed by the police on 4.4.2008 has no substance. 8. The following factors are required to be taken into consideration before granting bail and they are: (a) The nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 9. The factual aspect of the petitioner being arrayed as accused in various crimes is not in dispute. Indeed, the learned Sessions Judge having taken note of the involvement of the petitioner in various crimes refused to grant bail to him. The police could not apprehend the petitioner by the date of filing of the charge sheet. 9. The factual aspect of the petitioner being arrayed as accused in various crimes is not in dispute. Indeed, the learned Sessions Judge having taken note of the involvement of the petitioner in various crimes refused to grant bail to him. The police could not apprehend the petitioner by the date of filing of the charge sheet. While the case is pending in the committal court, the accused came to be produced on production of warrant and thereupon the learned Magistrate remanded the petitioner to judicial custody in this crime. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and gravity of the accusations levelled against him, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve to be admitted to bail. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, this is a case where a direction is required to be given to the committal court as well as Sessions Court to expedite the proceedings. Accordingly, the JFCM, Nuzvid is directed to expedite the proceedings and commit the case to Sessions Division as early as possible preferably within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.