V.D. Misra, J.
(1) Mahesh Dass, Roshan Lal, Gopal Dass and Munshi Ram have been challenged under Section 147. 14, 149, 342, 307 and 302, Indian Penal Code by police-station Tilak Nagar for causing the death of Bodh Raj Chawla and causing injuries to Sham Sunder. It is alleged that at about 8 p.m. on October 7,1974 Bodh Raj Chawla and Sham Sunder were passing in front of house No. Wz 283 Vishnu Garden when they were surrounded by Raj Kishore, Roshan, Gopal Dass, Murari and Yawan Parkash Gupta. They started shouting that the two should be finished and started giving them lathi blows and forced them inside house No. Wz 283. Bodh Raj fell down and was dragged. When Sham Sunder started shouting for help he was threatened with a knife. Munshi Ram, who was sitting inside the room, had also given them a beating. Ram Partap, who had witnessed the incident, went to the police station and lodged the report. The injured were removed to the hospital where Bodh Raj succumbed to his injuries on October 8, 1974. All the accused except Munshi Ram were arrested on October 8, 1974. The police put in the chalan on December 7, 1974. These persons moved an application for bail and they were admitted to bail by Mr. N.L. Kakkar. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by his order dated February 26, 1975. The ground for admitting them to bail was that the chalan had not been filed within sixty days as contemplated in section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. L.R. Chawla has moved this application for cancellation of the bail. The State also supports this application.
(2) Though Mahesh, Roshan, Yawan Parkash and Gopal Dass were arrested on October 8 1974, they were produced before the Magistrate for remand on October, 9, 1974. However, Raj Kishore and Murari who were arrested the same day (i.e. on October 8, 1974) were produced before the Magistrate for remand on October 8, l974. One of the questions raised before the lower court was whether the period during which an accused remains 'in police custody under section 57 of the Code is to be excluded from the period of 60 days mentioned in section 167. The lower court misinterpreted my judgment in Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 25 of 1975, Radhey Sham and other v. The State, decided on February 20, 1975 and held that this period had to be included. In that case this question had not arisen and I had not given any finding. However this question specifically arose in Criminal Misc. (M) No. 91 of 1975, Tarsem Kumar v. State, decided on April 21, 1975, and I held that 'while computing the total period of sixty days, referred to in proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of section 167. the period of detention under section 57 of the Code has to be excluded.' In other words, the chalan was admittedly filed within sixty days as regards Mahesh, Roshan, Yawan Parkash and Gopal.
(3) Another question which has been raised before me is whether the day on which an accused is produced before the Magistrate for remand has to be included in computing the period of sixty days mentioned in section 167. Bawa Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the first day 473 has to be excluded whereas the last day should be included. He cites various authorities :(...) I am afraid none of these authorities is relevant to the question raised before me.
(4) These decisions have been given on the basis of the terminology used in the statutes or orders of the Court. 'In the instant case no such terminology has been used. In fact, section 167 of the Code does not provide any method for calculating the period of sixty days.
(5) After a person is arrested, the police can keep him in custody for a limited period under section 57 of the Code. Thereafter, the accused has to be produced before a Magistrate for remand under section 167 of the Code. Where the Magistrate decides to grant the remand, the custody thereafter is under orders of the Magistrate. The custody under this (section cannot be granted for a period 'exceeding sixty days.' A calendar day as a unit of time is the interval from one midnight to another. It is not correct to take into consideration fractions of two days to make up one day. Thus the day on which the custody is granted cannot be excluded.
(6) Since Raj Kishore and Murari were produced before the Magistrate on October 8, 1974 when their further detention was authorised by the Magistrate under section 167(2), 8th of October has to be included while computing the period of sixty days. Thus the chalan filed on December 7, 1974 against them was obviously filed beyond a total period of sixty days and they were entitled to be released , on bail.
(7) Though I have held that the lower court was not justified in admitting Mahesh, Roshan, Yawan Parkash and Gopal Dass to bail on the ground that the chalan against them was filed beyond a total period of sixty days, yet Mr. Chitkara their learned counsel, was allowed to address me on facts to make out a case for allowing them to remain on bail. Mr. Chitkara submits that Mahesh is not named in the first information report. I find that Snam Sunder, who has lived to tell the tale, also does not name Mahesh as one of the assailants. In my judgment he should be allowed to remain on bail. It is also contended that Roshan Lal is not named by Sham Sunder as one of his assailants and so he should be allowed to remain on bail. I find that he has been named in the First Information Report as one of the persons who had surrounded the deceased and the injured and were instigating to kill them. His presence and the part played by him is, thereforee, prima facie established.
(8) The result is that the petition is partly accepted, the bails granted to Roshan Lal, Yawan Parkash and Gopal Dass are cancelled and they are directed to surrender to their bails.