JUDGMENT : 1. This Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 read with 167(2) of Cr.P.C. to release the petitioners/A-3. A-5 and A-6 on bail pending investigation, enquiry and trial in Crime No. 9/2016 of RSASTF Police station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Registered for the Offences punishable under Section 379, 307 IPC and Sections 20 (1) (A) read with 32A, 32b of A.P. Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016 for short (the Act). 2. The case of the Prosecution is that on 03-08-2016 at about 11.00 p.m. the Sub Inspector of Police, RSASTF Police Station, Tirupathi received credible information about the transportation of red sanders and proceeded to the scene of offence, where they found a car bearing No. TN 18 AE 7205. When the police tried to stop the vehicle in high speed against the police. With great difficulty, the police escaped and caught hold of accused 1 and 2 and also seized 6 red sander logs and a swift car bearing No. TN 20 AP 7676. Subsequently on interrogation, the accused 1 and 2 alleged to have confessed before the police about the involvement of the accused 3 to 9. During investigation, on 08-08-2016 the police arrested the petitioners and sent them to judicial custody. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that except the alleged confession of co-accused 1 and 2 about the involvement of the petitioners, there is no other material on record to implicate them. The petitioners were alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 307 IPC and Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. As per the case of the prosecution, the police team were not hurt, as they escaped while apprehending the accused No. 3, who drove the car in high speed. The punishment for the offences under the first part of Section 307 IPC, if not hurt is caused is the imprisonment of either description which may extent up to ten years. For the offence under Section 20 of A.P. Forest Act, 1967, the imprisonment is for a term which may extent to ten years and fine which may extent to ten lakhs rupees. Therefore, it has to be taken that the prescribed imprisonment that can be imposed under the above said offences, is only extendable up to ten years and not a minimum period of ten years or more. Therefore, it has to be taken that the prescribed imprisonment that can be imposed under the above said offences, is only extendable up to ten years and not a minimum period of ten years or more. Therefore, is fall under proviso (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section 2 of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. and if the investigation is not completed and charge sheet is not filed within sixty days, as required under the said provision, the petitioner are entitled to bail. 4. In the Present case, the petitioner were arrested on 08-08-2016 and sent to judicial custody and till date, the investigation is not completed and charge sheet is not filed and as the statutory period of sixty days is completed, they are entitled to bail application before the trial court i.e., V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Tirupati in Crl.M.P.No. 4490 of 2016. By Order without appreciating these aspects, dismissed the bail petition. With these contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to grant bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the bail submitted that A-4, A-7, A-8 and A-9, are absconding. Number of cases of similar nature are pending against the petitioners. As they are involved in serious offences, they may not be granted bail and the petition be dismissed. 6. The Petitioners are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 379, 307 IPC and Sections 20 of the Forest Act. As per the case of the prosecution, the police have not received any injury and thus they were not hurt in the incident. In MD. Naseem v. State of Orissa 2003 Cr.L.J. 1050 a learned single judge of high court of Orissa, considering the similar issue where the petitioner therein was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and did not cause any hurt, held that case falls under the first part of Section 307 IPC and the prescribing imprisonment which may extent to ten years and the maximum period of detention in custody would be 60 days as contemplated under the proviso (a) (ii) of Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, if the charge sheet is not filed within 60 days of date of detention, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The relevant portion is as under:- 8. The relevant portion is as under:- 8. In the case of hand, the FIR lodged by the informant, the victim wife of the petitioner and the statements of witnesses disclose no hurt is caused to the informant while attempt to murder by hanging was made and, therefore, the case is covered by the first part of Section 307 IPC is up to a maximum period of ten years. The provision prescribing the period of detention in custody during investigation of a case punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and the investigation for an offence for which the punishment is for imprisonment for a term which may extent to ten years is distinct and different. 9. In such view of the matter, the petitioner could be authorized to be detained in custody for a maximum period of 60 days in view of the proviso (a) (ii) to sub- section (2) of Section 167, Cr.P.C. the bail applications in terms of section 267 Cr.P.C. was failed on 3-8-2002 and admittedly the charge sheet was not filed by then. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 17-5-2002 and on 3-8-2002 more than 60 days has elapsed and therefore, the learned Additional sessions Judge ought to have directed release of the petitioner in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 7. Under Section 20(1) (d) (i) in every case where any case of the acts stated in the section relates to Red Sanders wood or sandal wood or any scheduled tree shall upon conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to ten years and fine which may extent to ten lakh rupees. Therefore the imprisonment that can be imposed is only extendable up to ten years and not minimum of ten years or more. The Apex Court in Rajeev Choudary v. State (N.C.T.) 2001 (2) ALT (Crl.) 113 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 2369 held that: “6…. It is apparent that pending investigation relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term “not less than 10 years”, the Magistrate is empowered to authorize the detention of the accused in custody for not more than 90 days. For rest of the offences, period prescribed is 60 days. Hence, in case, where offence is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years of more, accused could be detained up to a period of 90 days.” 8. For rest of the offences, period prescribed is 60 days. Hence, in case, where offence is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years of more, accused could be detained up to a period of 90 days.” 8. In view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, since the imprisonment that is prescribed under Section 20(d)(1) is extendable only up to ten years, the period of detention that can be authorized by the Magistrate for the purpose of investigation, as required under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) shall be taken as sixty days. 9. As the prosecution failed to file charge sheet within the said statutory period of sixty days, for the alleged offences, the petitioners are entitled for bail. The trial court while rejecting the bail petition, though sixty days period had elapsed in filing charge sheet, has not property appreciated these circumstances. As per the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, many of the accused are still absconding and therefore, investigation will take substantial time and the petitioners are in judicial custody for more than sixty days. 10. Without expressing any opinion on merits, and on the role of the petitioners, as the charge sheet has not been filed within the statutory period of sixty days, I am inclined to grant bail in view of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C. 11. The petitioners shall be released on bail in Crime No. 9/2016 of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupathi, Chitoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 307 IPC and Sections 20(1)(A) read with 32A, 32B of A.P. Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016, on executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties of like sum each to the satisfaction of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 12. The bail shall be subject to verification of the antecedents and addresses of the sureties. Out of the two sureties directed to be furnished, to surety shall be from the native place of the petitioners and the other shall be a local surety. 13. The petition is accordingly allowed.