JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - Heard Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Miss. S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the State. 2. In this application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner has sought for issuance of a direction to the learned court below to accept the bail bond of the Petitioner and release him on bail. The Petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No. 1320 of 2008 arising out of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 476 of 2008 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 366/376(2)(g)/342 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x)(xi)(xii) of S.C. and ST. (PA) Act. The Petitioner and other accused persons were arrested on 9.9.2008 and produced before the court below. While on remand on expiry of the period as prescribed under the proviso to Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, an application was filed on behalf of the Petitioner and other accused persons to release them on bail. The learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda by his order dated 7.1.2009 directed each of the accused persons to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/-with two solvent sureties for the like amount with condition that they shall appear before the said court on each date and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday till submission of the final form inasmuch as not to tamper with the prosecution evidence, not to terrorize the prosecution witnesses and not to leave the jurisdiction of the said court without permission. The bail bonds were furnished by the respective accused persons on the same day. 3. As it appears from the order dated 7.1.2009, the bail bonds furnished on behalf of the Petitioner, on being scrutinized, the learned court below accepted the bail bond furnished by one of the surety and in case of the other surety, namely, G. Gurumadhan, finding that it has not been mentioned in the bail bond that the accused shall not terrorize the prosecution witnesses, arrived at a conclusion that the bail bond is incomplete and refused to accept the same directing to put up the case record with rectified bail bond. On the same day at 4.30 P.M., the charge-sheet was received by the learned court below. On 8.1.2009, the Petitioner filed an application along with bail bond praying to accept the same. On the same day at 4.30 P.M., the charge-sheet was received by the learned court below. On 8.1.2009, the Petitioner filed an application along with bail bond praying to accept the same. The learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda observing that since the charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance of the offences has been taken, the Petitioner having failed to furnish the required bail bond, his right to be released on bail stands ceased, refused to accept the bail bond. 4. The question, therefore, arises as to whether applying the principles as laid down in the decision in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra 2002 (22) OCR (SC) 1, it should be held that the Petitioner acquired a indefeasible right to be released on bail. Learned Counsel for the State relying upon the decision in the case of Purna Chandra Naik v. State of Orissa (2002) 23 OCR 158 in support of such contention, submitted that this Court relying upon the decision in the case of Uday (supra) has held in that case that the Petitioner in the said case did not acquire any indefeasible right to be released on bail as he did not produce the bail bond within the time stipulated by the court below and before producing the bail bond, charge-sheet was submitted. In the said case, the facts reveal that the Petitioner therein was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount by order dated 24.8.2001. The Petitioner could not furnish the bail bond till 3.9.2001 and the charge-sheet was submitted in the meanwhile on 31:8.2001. Therefore, applying the decision in the case of Uday (supra), the learned Judge in the said decision held that the indefeasible right of the Petitioner stood extinguished. 5. In the instant case, however, the Petitioner on being directed to furnish the bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount for being released on bail before the charge-sheet was filed, he had furnished such bail bond. The court below, however, on a technical ground that the condition of bail has not been written on the bail bond, refused to accept the same. There is no finding of the court below that the bailor offered by the Petitioner was not solvent to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-. The court below, however, on a technical ground that the condition of bail has not been written on the bail bond, refused to accept the same. There is no finding of the court below that the bailor offered by the Petitioner was not solvent to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-. The rejection of the bail bond was, therefore, purely on a technical ground which the learned court below should not have done. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, which are distinguishable from the above facts, the indefeasible right which the Petitioner acquired for non-filing of the charge-sheet within the stipulated period, cannot be treated to have been extinguished and the learned court below should not have refused to release the Petitioner on bail. Be it observed that as per Explanation I to the proviso to Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure clearly stipulates that a magistrate can detain an accused in custody beyond the period prescribed so long as the accused fails to furnish bail in spite of passing an order granting bail to him even, where charge-sheet has not been filed within the said prescribed period. As discussed above, in the instant case, however, the accused-Petitioner did furnish bail after passing of the order granting bail, but the same was not accepted purely on technical grounds. 7. The CRLMC is, therefore, allowed directing that on the Petitioner furnishing a bail bond as was furnished on 7.1.2009 before the court below, he shall be released on bail on the same terms and conditions as has been imposed by the learned court below by order dated 7.1.2009, in the above noted case. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.