JUDGMENT : S.H. Vora, J. Admit. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent no.1-State and learned advocate Mr. Anand Gogia waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. Being aggrieved by an order dated 07.01.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No.4515 of 2018 in connection with I-C.R.No.196 of 2018 registered with Bhaktinagar Police Station whereby learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 167(2)a of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for releasing him on bail due to non filing of charge sheet within 90 days from the date of his arrest i.e. 22.09.2018, the appellant has filed present appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of the Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short "Act"). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the police arrested the appellant on 22.09.2018 in connection with I-C.R.No.196 of 2018 registered with Bhaktinagar Police Station for the offence registered under Sections 363, 302, 377, 511 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(2)v, 3(2)(2)(5)(A) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. On the same day, the applicant was produced before Judicial Magistrate First Class who granted remand and sent him in jail and since then, he is confined in jail. Admittedly, the police filed charge sheet on 24.12.2018, but before filing of the charge sheet, the appellant moved an application for bail at 10:50 a.m. on 24.12.2018 under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Code") which came to be dismissed. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the order of learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law as the police has filed charge sheet on 93rd day of the arrest of the appellant. Therefore, as per provision of Section 167(2) of the Code, the appellant was entitled for bail, but learned Sessions Judge misinterpreted the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, more particularly of Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra reported in, (2011) 10 SCC 445 . Learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Alamkhan Umarkhan Jatmalek Jenjari & Anr. Learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Alamkhan Umarkhan Jatmalek Jenjari & Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat reported in, (2016) 4 GLR 3446 wherein it is held that if the charge sheet is filed but before the same is actually filed with the court, the accused has availed of his indefeasible right under Section 167(2) of the Code, then the appellant's right would not stand frustrated or extinguished. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Anand Gogia and learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah placed heavy reliance upon the decision rendered in case of Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur (supra) and also the decision rendered in case of Bheru Vs. The State of M.P. In CRR No.4166 of 2018 on 20.12.2018. The provisions contained in Section 10 of General Clauses Act. 6. I have extensively heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties to the proceeding and minutely examined the principles settled in case law cited at bar. It is a matter of fact that the appellant has availed of his indefeasible right available to him under Section 167(2) of default bail at 10:50 a.m. on 24.12.2018 in the court of learned Sessions Judge. There is an endorsement made by Additional Registrar, District Court, Rajkot on the top of the bail application that the same was filed on 24.12.2018 at 10:50 a.m. There is also an endorsement made by the concerned staff that the charge sheet was not filed in the court. It is also not in dispute that the charge sheet was filed by the investigating agency on 24.12.2018, but subsequent to the filing of the default bail application by the appellant. In view of these peculiar and admitted facts of the case and in view of settled law, the appellant gets an indefeasible right of being released on bail if the charge sheet is not filed within the period of limitation. In this regard, it is suffice to refer the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India through C.B.I. Vs. Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav reported in, (2014) 2 GLH 557 and also the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in, (2001) AIR SC 1910. In case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has used the word 'forthwith'. Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav reported in, (2014) 2 GLH 557 and also the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in, (2001) AIR SC 1910. In case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has used the word 'forthwith'. Meaning thereby, if charge sheet is not filed within 90 days/60 days, the accused becomes entitled to be released forthwith means immediately. In other words, the moment the appellant file the bail application and prepared to offer bail on being directed it has to be held that the accused has availed of his indefeasible right even though the court has not considered the bail and has not indicated the terms and conditions of the bail and so also the accused has not furnished the same. 7. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent raised one more contention to the effect that on 22.12.2018 and 23.12.2018 there were holidays being Saturday and Sunday and therefore, charge sheet filed on 24.12.2018 can be considered to be filed within 90 days from the date of remand i.e. 23.09.2018. This contention raised on the basis of provisions contained in Section 10 of General Clauses Act is without any legal base because in computing the limitation under Section 167(2) of the Code, the method of computation under the General Clauses Act or under the Limitation Act cannot be brought in and the computation has to be strictly the number of days as set out in the provision contained in Section 167 of the Code only. Suffice to refer the decision rendered in case of Meghji Jethabhai Vankar & Others Vs. State of Gujarat reported in, (1987) 1 GLH 288 . 8. Now coming to the decision cited at bar by learned advocate for the respondent Mr. Gogia in case of Bheru (supra), the Court does not find any reason to apply to the facts of the present case because in case of Alamkhan Umarkhan (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this High Court has held that if an application for bail before charge sheet is filed, the accused could be said to have availed of his indefeasible right under Section 167(2) of the Code and appellants their bail was granted under Section 167(2) of the Code. Identical facts and situation exists in the present case as existed in case of Alamkhan Umarkhan (supra). Identical facts and situation exists in the present case as existed in case of Alamkhan Umarkhan (supra). Therefore, reliance on the decision of Bheru (supra) is misplaced both at facts and law. 9. In view of above factual aspects of the case and legal position emerging on record, present appeal deserves consideration and accordingly, it is hereby allowed. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with IC.R.No.196 of 2018 registered with Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot, on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Court and subject to the conditions that he shall: [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] attend the hearing before the concerned Court regularly. [f] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. concerned and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of Sessions Court concerned; 10. The competent authority will release the appellant only if the appellant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. 11. The present appeal is allowed accordingly. Direct service is permitted.