and the hair-splitting arguments on ‘whether an accused has to do anything for exercising this right’ and ‘when can this right be said to have accrued to him’, ‘whether it gets defeated by the filing of the charge-sheet before he is actually released on bail’, ‘what is meant by his being released on bail i.e. whether, securing an order of bail or actual physical release on bail from custody’ etc., can be seen to have arisen from such careless orders of remand passed by the Magistrates, or the Judges of the Special Courts, who are empowered to authorize detention under section 167 of the Code, as the case may be. It may be recalled that the way the relevant provision is worded leaves no manner of doubt that an order of detention beyond the maximum period prescribed should not be passed at all, in the first instant; and if this is faithfully followed, the remand would be only upto a date, which is the last date authorizing detention. The accused would naturally be produced before the Court for securing his further remand under Section 167 or he would be produced alongwith a charge-sheet. If chargesheet is not filed, there would be no question of remanding the accused further, without passing an order of bail. The Magistrate or the Judge, as the case may be, would immediately be able and also required to decide the question of grant of bail then and there. There would be no
