JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2014 is filed by the appellant-accused 25 against the order dated 3rd April, 2013 passed in Spl. Criminal Case No. 52 of 2013 by the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore with a prayer to enlarge him (appellant-accused 25) on bail in Crime No. 384 of 2012 registered in Basaveswaranagar Police Station, Bangalore city for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 153-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 10, 13, 18 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Criminal Petition No. 319 of 2014 is filed by accused 25 in Crime No. 384 of 2012 praying to quash the order dated 24-11-2012 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crime No. 384 of 2012 registered in Basaveswaranagar Police Station, Bangalore, which is later investigated by National Investigation Agency (NIA for short). 2. Facts which are relevant for disposal of the above matters are as under:- Initially Basaveswaranagar Police registered case in Crime No. 384 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 Sections 153A, 121A, 120B, 121, 122, 379, 153B and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 10, 13, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on the basis of the report submitted by Mr. Jithendranath K.N. Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB, Bangalore and submitted the first information report. It is alleged in the report that the complainant-Jithendranath, Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB, Bangalore received credible information on 26-8-2012 that certain persons who are the members of banned Terrorist Organisation viz. Lashker-e-Toiba are in possession of illegal fire arms and they have conspired to attack certain personalities of Hindu Community in Bangalore and Hubli Cities. During the course of investigation, the accused are apprehended and certain incriminating materials are recovered. On 4-11-2012, the appellant-accused 25 was arrested and he was produced by the concerned Police before the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore with a remand application on 5-11-2012 and prayed for Police custody. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate granted Police custody till 19-11-2012. During the course of investigation, the accused are apprehended and certain incriminating materials are recovered. On 4-11-2012, the appellant-accused 25 was arrested and he was produced by the concerned Police before the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore with a remand application on 5-11-2012 and prayed for Police custody. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate granted Police custody till 19-11-2012. When the investigation was in progress, on the report of Bangalore Police to Government of India, the Government of India vide Order No. 11011/55/2012, dated 16-11-2012 ordered for further investigation of this crime by NIA. Thereafter NLA registered fresh crime in RC No. 4/2012/NIA/ HYD and took up investigation of this case from CCB Police, Bangalore. It is the case of the petitioner/appellant-accused 25 that since the charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days from the date of his arrest, he is entitled for bail under Section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Thus he filed an application under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge to enlarge him on bail on 5-3-2013. By then, the period of detention was more than 123 days. It is further case of the appellant that from the date of his arrest till 5-3-2013, no application for extension of period of remand is filed by the Investigating Officer and no extension of remand order is obtained from the Special Court. Objections to the above application were filed by the Investigating Officer of NIA contending that Prl. Sessions Court, Bangalore City has extended the period of remand of appellant-accused 25 upto 180 days from the date of his first remand by the learned Magistrate in Crime No. 384 of 2012, by order dated 24-11-2012. According to the appellant, he did not know about the order dated 24-11-2012 till filing of the statement of objections by the Investigating Officer of NIA. 3. In the matter on hand, the charge-sheet was filed on 20-2-2013 after completion of investigation in respect of the other accused, but not in respect of the appellant-accused 25. It is mentioned in the investigation report dated 20-2-2013 that the investigation in respect of appellant-accused 25 is being continued and hence the charge-sheet against him was not filed. 4. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 167(2) of Cr. It is mentioned in the investigation report dated 20-2-2013 that the investigation in respect of appellant-accused 25 is being continued and hence the charge-sheet against him was not filed. 4. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. vide order dated 3-4-2013 on the ground that the period of detention was extended in respect of the appellant also for a period of 180 days by order dated 24-11-2012. Later supplemental charge-sheet was filed against the appellant on 2-5-2013. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection of the bail application filed under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. criminal appeal is filed. For the very purpose, criminal petition is also filed. 5. The relevant dates in the matter on hand are as under:- S. No. Date Event 1. 4-11-2012 Accused 25-appellant came to be arrested in the crime in question. 2. 5-11-2012 Appellant was produced before the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and was remanded to Police custody till 19-11-2012. 3. 16-11-2012 Government of India passed an order to transfer the case registered in Basaveswaranagar Police Station to NIA for investigation. 4. 22-11-2012 The Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 to extend the period of investigation from 90 days to 180 days. 5. 24-11-2012 The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge extended period of remand upto 180 days from the date of 1st remand by the learned Magistrate in case of arrested accused in Crime No. 384 of 2012. 6. 25-11-2012 National Investigation Agency took over investigation and re-registered the case as RC No. 4/2012/NIA/HYD. 7. 7-2-2013 Appellant-accused 25 filed an application for bail under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. before the Trial Court in Spl. C.C. No. 52 of 2013, which came to be dismissed on merits and later confirmed by this Court. 8. 20-2-2013 NIA filed charge-sheet against accused 1, 2, 4, 7 to 12, 14 and 15. 9. 5-3-2013 Accused 25-appellant filed an application before the learned Special Judge in Spl. C.C. No. 52 of 2013 seeking bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. 10. 3-4-2013 Learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant-accused 25 for bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. 11. 9. 5-3-2013 Accused 25-appellant filed an application before the learned Special Judge in Spl. C.C. No. 52 of 2013 seeking bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. 10. 3-4-2013 Learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant-accused 25 for bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. 11. 2-5-2013 NIA filed supplementary charge-sheet against appellant-accused 25 within a period of 180 clays from the date of 1st remand of accused 25 i.e. 5-11-2012. 6. The contentions of the appellant are as under:- (i) There is no order passed by the jurisdictional Court extending remand of the appellant to Police custody for further investigation after 19-11-2012. (ii) That the order of extension of the period of remand upto 180 days passed by the Sessions Court Bangalore from the date of 1st remand by the learned Magistrate in respect of arrested accused in Crime No. 384 of 2012 is without notice to the appellant. 7. The first contention of the appellant cannot be accepted inasmuch as the order dated 24-11-2012 passed by the Sessions Judge clearly reveals that the period of remand is extended upto 180 days from the date of 1st remand by the learned Magistrate in case of arrested accused in Crime No. 384 of 2012. From the dates mentioned supra, it is clear that the appellant was arrested on 4-11-2012 and was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 5-11-2012 and he was remanded to Police custody till 19-11-2012. By the order dated 24-11-2012, the Sessions Judge extended the period of remand upto 180 days from the date of 1st remand by the learned Magistrate in respect of all the arrested accused in Crime No. 384 of 2012. Since the appellant was one of the arrested accused in Crime No. 384 of 2012 (originally registered in Basaveswaranagar Police Station, which later transferred to NIA for investigation), period of his remand was also extended upto 180 days from the date of his 1st remand i.e. from 5-11-2012. 180 days of remand as ordered by the Sessions Judge in respect of the appellant herein will end on 2-5-2013. Thus it is clear that the remand of the appellant/petitioner was extended along with other arrested accused and the same ended on 2-5-2013 as far as appellant/petitioner is concerned. On the very day i.e. 2-5-2013 itself, NIA filed the supplementary charge-sheet against the appellant herein. Thus it is clear that the remand of the appellant/petitioner was extended along with other arrested accused and the same ended on 2-5-2013 as far as appellant/petitioner is concerned. On the very day i.e. 2-5-2013 itself, NIA filed the supplementary charge-sheet against the appellant herein. Thus it is not open for the appellant to contend that his remand was not extended by the jurisdictional Court after 19-11-2012. On the other hand, it is clear from the facts that remand of the appellant was extended upto 2-5-2013 and that on the very day i.e. 2-5-2013, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant by the Investigating Officer before the jurisdictional Court, which is well-within time. 8. So far as the 2nd contention of the appellant is concerned, the appellant's Counsel is justified in contending that the appellant did not have notice of the order of extension of period of remand passed by the Sessions Court on 24-11-2012. No notice was served on the appellant in the matter of extension of period of remand. The appellant was not produced before the Sessions Court at the time of passing the order extending the period of remand on 24-11-2012. In this regard, the appellant's Counsel is justified in relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1994 SC 2623 : (1994) 4 SCC 602 : 1994 SCC (Cri.) 1087 : 1995 Cri. L.J. 517 (SC) (paragraph 21) and the judgment in the case of Devinderpal Singh vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, (1996) 1 SCC 44 : 1996 SCC (Cri.) 5, for contending that the accused ought to have been notified by the designated Court that the question of grant of extension of the period of investigation was under consideration. He is also justified in contending that at least the accused ought to have been produced before the Sessions Court at the time of hearing the application for extension of remand. 9. However, on the said ground the accused 25 cannot be released on bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. Undisputedly, an application filed by appellant under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. for grant of bail on merits was rejected by' the jurisdictional Court and such order is confirmed by this Court. 9. However, on the said ground the accused 25 cannot be released on bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. Undisputedly, an application filed by appellant under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. for grant of bail on merits was rejected by' the jurisdictional Court and such order is confirmed by this Court. This is the second application for bail, but under a different provision i.e., under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. The appellant wants to invoke the said provision because of the default of the Investigating Officer as mentioned supra. In other words, the appellant seeks an order of bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. on the basis of illegality of an order remanding the appellant-accused to Police custody for further investigation. In the judgments of the Apex Court mentioned supra, the question as to whether the accused is entitled for grant of default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. on the basis of illegality of an order remanding the accused was not in issue. It is no doubt true that in the aforementioned judgments, the Apex Court has observed that the accused shall be notified or shall be produced before the Court at the time of hearing the remand application filed by the Investigating Officer in order to give an opportunity to the accused to oppose the same. In the aforementioned matters, the Apex Court has ruled that the rules of natural justice require that the accused need to be produced before the Court or need to be notified about the remand application. But the consequence of non-following the aforementioned procedure is not the question which was decided in the aforementioned two judgments. From the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, it is prima facie clear that the order remanding the appellant herein to custody for 180 days for further investigation was without notice and consequently the same is irregular. In our considered opinion, merely because such an erroneous order of remand is passed by the Sessions Court, the benefit of the same will not accrue to the accused for seeking bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. The fact remains that the order of remand was passed against the appellant also on 24-11-2012 for 180 days from the date of his 1st remand by the learned Magistrate in Crime No. 384 of 2012. P.C. The fact remains that the order of remand was passed against the appellant also on 24-11-2012 for 180 days from the date of his 1st remand by the learned Magistrate in Crime No. 384 of 2012. We have already mentioned supra that the period of remand of the appellant has ended on 2-5-2013 and on which date the charge-sheet was filed. Thus it is clear that the charge-sheet was filed within the extended period of remand. In our considered opinion, as has been rightly held by the Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mahesh Chand and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1986 Raj. 58 , the illegality of an order remanding a person accused of an offence to custody under Section 167(2) or Section 309(2) of the New Code does not, per se, entitle the accused to be released on bail. The Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has considered the question almost similar to the second question as raised in this appeal and has concluded that the accused may be justified to have other legal remedies including the remedy of habeas corpus against such illegal detention. But the illegal detention, by itself and taken alone is not a ground for granting bail and has not been recognised as such by the Criminal Courts. 10. Bombay High Court in the case of Vajianath S/o Trimbak Patre vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (5) Bom. C.R. 718 : 2000 (2) Mh. L.J. 35, considering the various judgments of the Apex Court as well as the High Courts concluded as under:- "19 Notwithstanding the fact that there may be some errors committed by the learned Magistrate, while passing the committal order under Section 209, more particularly regarding extending the remand of the accused, it is not permissible for the applicant to claim bail on account of such default " 11. We find that the Investigating Officer has not produced the accused before the Court at the time of hearing the application for extension of remand. So also the learned Sessions Judge has not insisted production of the accused or service of notice on the accused on the application filed by the Investigating Officer seeking extension of period of remand. Hence we are of the opinion that error/procedural lapse has occurred on the part of the Court below as well as the Investigating Officer. So also the learned Sessions Judge has not insisted production of the accused or service of notice on the accused on the application filed by the Investigating Officer seeking extension of period of remand. Hence we are of the opinion that error/procedural lapse has occurred on the part of the Court below as well as the Investigating Officer. The order of extension of remand passed by the jurisdictional Court is with the aforementioned error. But the advantage of such error cannot be given to the appellant-accused 25 for releasing him on bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. 12. At the cost of repetition, we place on record that the appellant's application for bail on merits under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. is already rejected by the Trial Court and the same is confirmed by this Court on an earlier occasion. It is also brought to the notice of the Court by Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned Advocate for the respondent that the trial of this case is already in progress and seven witnesses are examined. According to him, the trial may be completed within six months to one year. Thus it is clear that from the date of the impugned order i.e., 3rd April, 2013, much water has flown. Undisputedly, the charge-sheet is filed within 180 days from the date of first remand. Charges are framed and trial is going on and hopefully trial will be completed within one year. In view of the above and following the Full Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mahesh Chand and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vajianath, the appeal as well as the petition need to be dismissed. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2014 and Criminal Petition No. 319 of 2014 stand dismissed.