ORDER V. Jagannathan, J : The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by him under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the submission made by the petitioner's Counsel is that, the petitioner is said to be one of the accused persons against whom a case is registered under Sections 120(b), 121 and 121A of the I.P.C. and Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the he moved the Trial Court under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking bail on the ground of non-filing of the charge sheet by the I.o. within 90 days as required under law. However, the Trial Court dismissed the said application on the footing that the I.O. has sought time extension beyond 90 days upto 180 days. 2. Referring to the aforesaid factors and also relying on the decision of this Court reported in 2004 Crl.L.J. 1033 and the Madras High Court reported in 2005(2) Crimes 533, the submission made is that, on the date of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., there was no application filed by the respondent-State seeking time extension and, therefore, the Trial Court could not have rejected bail to the petitioner. 3. Having thus heard the petitioner's Counsel and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State, who submitted that the application for time extension was filed by the I.O after the expiry of 90 days i.e., on 92nd day. It is thus clear that, as on the date when the application was filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., there was no request of the I.O., for time extension under Section 43-B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. 4. This Court, in the case reported in 2004 Crl.L.J. 1033, has held that, where bail application was filed under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and on the same day charge sheet was also filed, bail could not have been rejected by the Trial Court, more so when the bail application was first in point of time. In the other decision referred to by the petitioner's Counsel, it has been held by the Madras High Court that, on the date when the application for bail was filed, as there was no time extension sought by the public prosecutor, the petitioners, therefore, were entitled to bail. 5. In the other decision referred to by the petitioner's Counsel, it has been held by the Madras High Court that, on the date when the application for bail was filed, as there was no time extension sought by the public prosecutor, the petitioners, therefore, were entitled to bail. 5. The aforesaid decisions apply to the case on hand inasmuch as, not only the charge sheet was not filed but, even the application for time extension was also not filed within 90 days or before the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, the statutory bail to which the petitioner is entitled under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. could not have been denied by the Trial Court. 6. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties and he shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten the witnesses and shall mark his attendance before the concerned jurisdictional police station on every Sunday at any time between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till filling of the charge sheet. He shall not involve himself in the commission of like offences in future and he shall also appear before the Court regularly on all days of hearing.