of t i me and may find that the inve s tigation had not progressed in t he pro p er manner or that there has been unnecessary, deliberate or avoidable delay in completing th e investigation. In that event, he ma y not submit any report to the court under clause (bb) to s e ek ext e nsion of time. Thus, for seeki n g extension of time under cla u se (bb ) , the public prosecutor after a n independent application of h is mind to the request of the investig a ting agency is required to mak e a rep o rt to the Designated Court ind i cating therein the progress of t he inv e stigation and disclosing justifi c ation for keeping the accuse d in furt h er custody to enable the inv e stigating agency to complete t he inv e stigation. The public prosecut o r may attach the request of t he inv e stigating officer along with his request or application and rep o rt, but his report, as envisaged under clause (bb), must disclose on t he fac e of it that he has applied his mind and was satisfied with t he pro g ress of the investigation and c onsidered grant of further time to co m plete the investigation necess a ry. The use of the expression “ on the report of the public prosecut o r indicating the progress of t he inv e stigation and the specific r e asons for the detention of t he acc u sed beyond the said period” a s occurring in clause (bb) in s u bsec t ion (2) of Section 167 as a mended by Section 20(4) a re important and indicative of the l e gislative intent not to keep an acc u sed in custody unreasonabl y and to grant extension only on the report of the public prose c utor. The report of the pu b lic pro s ecutor, therefore, is not merel y a formality but a very vital rep o rt, because the consequence of its a c ceptance affects the liberty of an acc u sed and it must, therefore, str i ctly comply with the requireme n ts as c ontained in clause (bb). The r equest of an investigating offi c er for extension of time is no sub s titute for the report of the pu b lic pro s ecutor. Where either no repor t as is envisaged by clause (bb ) is file d or the report filed by the pub l ic prosecutor is not accepted by the Designated Court, since the g rant of extension of time un d er cla u se (bb) is neither a formali ty nor automatic, the necess a ry cor o llary would be that an accus e d would be entitled to seek b ail an d the court ‘shall’ release hi m on bail if he furnishes bail as req u ired by the Designated Court. It is not merely the question of for m in which the request for ext e nsion under clause (bb) is m a de but one of substance. The conten t s of the report to be submitted by the public prosecutor, after pro p er application of his mind, a re
