Order The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Ichak P.S. Case No. 143 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 2777 of 2008 by which a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his release on bail was rejected. The petitioner is in custody for the alleged offence under Sections 147/148/149/323/435/427/386/ 120B of the Indian Penal Coda as also under Section 17 of the CLA Act, now pending before Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh. 2. The prosecution story in short was that in the intervening night between 12/ 13.8:2008 about 15/20 culprits arrived at the crusher machine and assaulted the informant, who was an employee there. It was further alleged that the miscreants poured diesel on the crusher machine and set it on fire and extended threat to the informant to communicate the owner of the said crusher not to re-start his work of crusher without fixing Rs. 4,000/- regularly to them. The informant disclosed the names of only three accused who had come alongwith other 10/15 unknown members of the JPC (Jharkhand Prastutee Committee) terrorists organization. 3. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. It was alleged that his name was transpired during course of investigation, as such, on the request of the Investigating Officer, the petitioner was remanded in the instant case through video conferencing on 11.8.2010. 4. The learned counsel submitted that on 26.11.2010 a bail petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the copy to the petition to the Public Prosecutor after completion of his detention in custody for 106. days and beyond 90 days but the petition could not be taken up by the learned CJM at about 11 a.m. and no order could be passed at that time. When the matter was taken up at about 2 p.m. the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 26.11.2010 and to quote: - "Heard. days and beyond 90 days but the petition could not be taken up by the learned CJM at about 11 a.m. and no order could be passed at that time. When the matter was taken up at about 2 p.m. the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 26.11.2010 and to quote: - "Heard. As per report of the G.R. maintenance clerk, charge-sheet against the petitioner has been submitted by the police today itself at 2 p.m. Hence the prayer for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. of the petitioner is rejected as not maintainable." 5. The learned counsel submitted that the legislative mandate conferred right on the accused petitioner to be released on bail on expiry of the period contemplated under the proviso to sub-section 2(a)(i) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure., if the accused was prepared to furnish bail bond and such statutory right as conferred under such section would not be nullified by taking recourse to subterfuge and keeping the matter pending by giving latitude to the I.O. to file chargesheet before the bail petition could be taken up for consideration even after expiry of 90 days, Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure not only confers indefeasible right on the accused but also casts duty/obligation on the Magistrate to release the accused on bail under such provision when the prosecution failed to discharge its duty by filing the police report under Section 173 of Cr. P. C. within the statutory period. In the given facts and circumstances, the learned counsel submitted, that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed gross error by not releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the petitioner had expressed his readiness and willingness to file his bail bond as the charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not submitted by the time such petiton was filed. 6. 6. In Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001)5 SCC 453 , the Apex Court observed: - Even though a Magistrate does not possess any jurisdiction to refuse the bail when no charge-sheet is filed after expiry of the period stipulated under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 and even though the accused may be prepared to furnish the bail required, but such furnishing of bail has to be in accordance with the order passed by the Magistrate. In other words, without an order of the Magistrate the legislative mandate engrafted in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 cannot be given effect to. Necessarily, therefore, an order of the court has to be passed." The Apex Court further observed:- "The right accruing under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code on the expiry of the statutory period of sixty days cannot be said to have been availed of by mere making of an application• for bail expressing therein willingness to furnish bail, but on furnishing bail bond as required under clause (a)(ii) of the proviso read with Explanation-I to Section 167(2). The stage for actual furnishing of bail bond must reach. If the challan is filed before that, then there is no question of enforcing the right, howsoever valuable or indefeasible it may be, after filing of the challan because thereafter the right under default clause cannot be exercised. If because of any bona fide view or procedure adopted by the court concerned some delay is caused and in the meantime the challan is filed, the court has no power to direct rel8ase under the proviso to Section 167(2)." 7. In the facts and circumstances I find that the petitioner could not be released on bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hazaribagh by the order dated 26.11.2010 in spite of his detention in custody beyond 90 days for the reasons disclosed that the chargesheet was filed on the date of filing of the petition under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. itself before the order could be recorded. The petitioner admitted that he had filed the petition on 26.11.2010 at about 11 a.m. and a report was called for from the general register section of the court and the section reported submission of charge-sheet at about 2 p.m. on the same day, as such the prayer of the petitioner for his bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected. As per settled law I find that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh was justified in rejecting the petition of the petitioner under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. for his bail. There being no merit, this Cr.M.P. is dismissed.