ORDER : This application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been rejected. 2. A First Information Report was instituted being Khunti P.S. Case No. 82 of 2015 in which it was alleged that on 07.04.2015 the informant was at her home along with her husband when her elder-brother-in-law along with other accused persons including the petitioner came on motorcycles but they had went away. Subsequently on 09.05.2015 eight accused persons including the petitioner broke up the door by Tangi and took her husband where he was assaulted and his head was severed. 3. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.10.2015 but since no charge-sheet could be submitted by the Police an application was filed under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail. It appears that vide order dated 18.01.2016 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti had rejected the prayer of the petitioner. 4. Heard Mr. K. P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. K. Tiwary, learned A.P.P., for the State. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was remanded on 17.10.2015 and on completion of ninety days in custody the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. had filed an application on 16.1.2016 at 11:35 AM and the charge-sheet along with the case diary was submitted to the court below by the Investigating Officer on 16.01.2016 at 12:35 PM. It has been submitted that admittedly the police did not submit charge-sheet within the statutory period of ninety days and merely because the charge-sheet was submitted on the ninety first day and that too after the application was preferred by the petitioner cannot prevent the indefeasible right of being released on bail which had accrued to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti dated 18.01.2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. It has further been submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti dated 18.01.2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. V. K. Tiwary, learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has supported the impugned order and has submitted that since the charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer the petitioner was not legally entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for grant of default bail. 7. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 17.10.2015 and on completion of ninety days in custody since no charge-sheet was submitted by the police the petitioner on the ninety first day i.e. on 16.01.2016 at 11:35 AM preferred an application under Section 167(2)(a) (i) of the Cr.P.C. From the order sheet, it appears that on 16.01.2016 the charge-sheet and case diary had also been submitted by the Investigating Officer on the same day at 12:35 PM. The matter as would appear was posted for 18.01.2016 and the application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the charge-sheet had been submitted on the same day. 8. As has been indicated above, admittedly the bail application was filed on 16.01.2016 at 11:35 AM. In the bail petition itself as well as in the order dated 16.01.2016 it has been indicated that the charge-sheet was received on 16.01.2016 at 12:35 PM, therefore, admittedly the petitioner had invoked his indefeasible right on expiry of ninety days by preferring an application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and till such application was filed the Investigating Office had not submitted charge-sheet and immediately on filing the application for bail charge-sheet was submitted which can be construed to be attempt by the Investigating Officer to frustrate the prayer of the petitioner. 9. In the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra reported in [2001 (2) EastCrC 256 (SC)] it was held as follows:- “15. The question posed has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in following terms:- “In our opinion it would be more in consonance with the legislative mandate to hold that an accused must be held to have availed of his indefeasible right, the moment he files and application for being released on bail and offers to abide by the terms and conditions of bail. To interpret the expression availed of to mean actually being released on bail after furnishing the necessary bail required would cause great injustice to the accused and would defeat the very purpose of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further would make an illegal custody to be legal, inasmush as after the expiry of the stipulated period the Magistrate had no further jurisdiction to remand and such custody of the accused is without any valid order of remand.” 10. The right of an accused cannot be denied or annihilated merely by filing a charge-sheet when impregnable right of an accused has already accrued to him. The petitioner could not have been denied such right merely because the charge-sheet was submitted on the same day as the petitioner had already invoked his right under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti was in error while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. 11. In the facts and circumstances enumerated above, this application is allowed and the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 82 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 235 of 2015 is quashed and set aside. 12. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 82 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 235 of 2015.