Judgment : This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 4-2-2014 in Crl.M.P.SR.No.1321 of 2014 in Crime No.365 of 2013 of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport Police Station, Shamshabad, on the file of the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. The petitioner is accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498, 366, 342 and 506 of I.P.C., of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport Police Station, Shamshabad. He was arrested on 18-11-2013 in connection with the said case and was remanded to judicial custody on the same day. A Bail Application on his behalf was filed under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C., on 4-2-2014. The petitioner was in judicial custody for 77 days, as on the said date, investigation was not completed and no charge sheet was filed. The learned Magistrate, however returned the bail application stating that the bail application under Section 167(2)(a) of Cr.P.C., in the present case has to be filed after 90 days from the date on which the accused was remanded to judicial custody. The said order is challenged in the present Criminal Revision Case. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate could not be able to make a distinction between the offence punishable for a period of not less than 10 years and punishment for an offence, which may extend to 10 years. Among the offences alleged against the petitioner, for the offence under Section 366 of I.P.C., the imprisonment “may extend to 10 years”. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of the petitioner falls under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C., but not under Section 167(2)(a)(i), therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the statutory bail. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Rajeev Chaudhary Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2001 Crl.L.J., 2941)wherein the Supreme Court has clarified the position as under:- “imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and also fine; that means imprisonment can be for a clear period of 10 years or less. It cannot be said that minimum sentence would be 10 years or more. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2001 Crl.L.J., 2941)wherein the Supreme Court has clarified the position as under:- “imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and also fine; that means imprisonment can be for a clear period of 10 years or less. It cannot be said that minimum sentence would be 10 years or more. Further, in context also if we consider Clause (i) of Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) it would be applicable in case where investigation relates to an offence punishable (1) with death; (2) imprisonment for life; and (3) imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years.” In the instant case, the punishment provided for the offence punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C., is “which may extend to 10 years and also fine”. It can vary from minimum to maximum of 10 years and it cannot be said that the imprisonment prescribed is less than 10 years. Therefore, the learned Magistrate had fallen into error in returning the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. Since the petitioner was in judicial custody for 77 days from the date of his initial remand and on the said date the investigation was not completed and charge sheet was not filed, he is entitled for the statutory bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C., as the charge sheet was not filed within the prescribed period of 60 days as per the said proviso. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The order passed by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyuberabad, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.