JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P., for the State. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ramgarh in Patratu P.S. Case No. 91 of 2015 by which the prayer for bail of the petitioner under Section 167(ii) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected has been upheld. 3. A First Information Report was instituted against the petitioner being Patratu P. S. Case No. 91 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 302, 120B, 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner on being apprehended was remanded on 02.11.2016. An application under Section 167(ii) of the Cr.P.C. was preferred by him on 31.01.2017 but the same was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ramgarh on 31.01.2017 itself stating therein that the application so filed was itself per-mature. The petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2017 which however was dismissed on 28.02.2017 which are the orders impugned to the present application. 4. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that both the courts below had committed an error of law in excluding the first date of remand while calculating the period of 90 days and if the first date of remand is included the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 167(ii) of the Cr.P.C. was never a pre-mature application. It has been stated that the charge-sheet was submitted on 03.02.2017 in G. R. Office and it was produced before the court below on 04.02.2017 much after the period of 90 days had expired. Learned senior counsel thus submits that the petitioner having availed of his indefeasible right he deserves to be released on bail. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 6. Considering the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner vis-a-vis the impugned orders, the following questions are required to be answered in the present case. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 6. Considering the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner vis-a-vis the impugned orders, the following questions are required to be answered in the present case. (a) Whether the date of remand has to be excluded while calculating the period of 90 days in detention while invoking Section 167 (ii) of the Cr.P.C. (b) Whether the application preferred by the petitioner is pre-mature. 7. Since the second question formulated is directly related with the first as such the first question is being taken up for being answered in the present application. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was remanded on 02.11.2016 and the application preferred by him under Section 167(ii) of the Cr.P.C. was on 31.01.2017 and after the initial date of remand is excluded as has been done by the learned courts below the application would seem pre-mature as it would be on the 90th day of remand. However, if the initial date of remand is included the period of 90 days expired on 30th January, 2017 and the application thus filed on 31st January, 2017 would be an application which was ripe for consideration for compulsive bail to the petitioner. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the of Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra reported in [2012 (1) East Cr C 94(SC)] had held that the relevant date of counting 90 days for filing charge-sheet is the date of first order of remand and not the date of arrest. The said judgment was based on the proposition of law laid down in the case of Chaganti Satyanarayana and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1986) 3 SCC 141 wherein it was held that 90 days will begin to run from the date of order of remand. It was observed in the case of Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (Supra) that the learned Magistrate cannot remand an accused to custody for a period of 90 days in total and 90 days would start running from the date of first remand. 9. It was observed in the case of Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (Supra) that the learned Magistrate cannot remand an accused to custody for a period of 90 days in total and 90 days would start running from the date of first remand. 9. The above proposition of law if considered in the backdrop of the reasonings given in the impugned orders dated 31.01.2017 and 28.02.2017 would lead to a conclusion that the first date of remand i.e. on 02.11.2016 has to be taken into consideration while calculating the period of 90 days. The period of 90 days would thus expire on 30th January, 2017 and immediately on the next date the petitioner had availed of his indefeasible right which was curtailed by the learned courts below by excluding the first date of remand and coming to a conclusion that the application under Section 167 (ii) of the Cr.P.C. was itself pre-mature. The charge-sheet itself was submitted on 04.02.2017 much after the expiry of the period of 90 days. Such circumstance, therefore, entitles the petitioner to be released on compulsive bail as the petitioner had filed the application immediately on expiry of 90 days by including the first date of remand. 10. Thus in view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ramgarh in Patratu P.S. Case No. 91 of 2015 and the order passed by the learned Session Judge, Ramgarh on 28.02.2017 in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2017 are hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The petitioner, named above, 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 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ramgarh, in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No. 91 of 2015 (G. R. No. 1614 of 2015).