ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal in G.R. No 124 of 2017, corresponding to Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 61 of 2017 whereby and where under the application preferred by the petitioner under section 167(2)(a)(1)of the Cr.P.C, 1973had been rejected. 3. The petitioner was implicated on the allegation that he had eloped with the daughter of the informant. It has been alleged that on 12.02.2017 the petitioner his parents and the deceased came and told the marriage between that the deceased and the petitioner has been solemnised. It has been stated that the informant after preparing food went out and when she came back her daughter disclosed that the petitioner and his parents had administered some medicine upon her and fled away with valuables. It has been alleged that when she was being taken to the hospital she died. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Rajmahal P.S Case No. 61/2017 was instituted under section 328/302/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner surrendered on 01.03.2017 and since the charge sheet was not filed within the statutory period of 90 days, the petitioner filed an application under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973for being released on bail which however was dismissed on 31.05.2017 and which is impugned to the present application. 5. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that immediately on completion of 90 days from the date of his surrender the petitioner had preferred such application but only because of the fact that charge sheet has been submitted after the application was preferred by the petitioner under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 the prayer for compulsory bail was rejected. It has been stated that compulsory bail could not have not been extinguished merely because of filing a charge sheet after the application under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973was preferred by the petitioner and therefore it has been contended that the impugned order being bad in law is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to an order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No 144 of 2017. 6. Learned A.P.P on the other hand had opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to an order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No 144 of 2017. 6. Learned A.P.P on the other hand had opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had surrendered on 01.03.2017 and immediately on completion of the period of 90 days in detention and since charge sheet was not filed the petitioner preferred an application under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 Immediately on the application having been filed on 31.05.2017 a report was called for from the office as to whether charge sheet has been submitted or not. A noting had been given in the application itself wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is lying in custody for 91 days and charge sheet has been filed after filing of the application under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 7. In the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2001(5) SCC 453 , It was held that if the charge sheet is filed subsequent to the availing of the indefeasible right by the accused that right would not stand frustrated or extinguished if otherwise the accused is entitled to be released on bail by virtue of section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 8. In the case of Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2016 (3) JBCJ it was held as follows:- "6. It is amply clear that the learned court below has misinterpreted the principle and proposition of law and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. Looking to the facts of the present case it is evident that the charge-sheet was not filed within the prescribed period of 60 days and the accused had filed the application at 11:30 am of 04.04.2015 for being released on bail and was ready to furnish the sufficient sureties. After filing of the application at 11:30 am. Looking to the facts of the present case it is evident that the charge-sheet was not filed within the prescribed period of 60 days and the accused had filed the application at 11:30 am of 04.04.2015 for being released on bail and was ready to furnish the sufficient sureties. After filing of the application at 11:30 am. the court below adjourned the matter and called for a report from the G.R. Clerk who submitted the report that the charge sheet has been submitted at 3:10 PM on 04.04.2015 i.e. much after the filing of the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 It is well settled that the date when the accused filed the application for benefit of default of provisions as en-grafted under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 the indefeasible right to be released on bail had accrued and the prosecution cannot adopt the subterfuge of filing the charge-sheet after the expiry of the statutory period and that too after the filing of the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 to destroy the legal right of the accused to be enlarged on bail." 9. Factual aspect of the present case is similar to what has been decided by this Court in the judgment under reference. Annihilation of the indefeasible right which had accrued to the petitioner for being released on compulsory bail on completion of 90 days in detention cannot be permitted merely on the ground that charge sheet had been filed on the date of filing of the application under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 admittedly after filing of such application. 10. It can be construed to mean an attempt made by the prosecution to frustrate the right which had accrued to the petitioner for being released on bail. 11. Thus on consideration of the factual as well the legal matrix enumerated above the impugned order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal being not in accordance with law is hereby quashed and set aside with a direction that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal in G.R. No 124 of 2017, corresponding to Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 61 of 2017. Petition allowed.