IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3148 of 2008()
1. PRATHEESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.PONNU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :22/05/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bail Appl. No. 3148 of 2008
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dated: 22-05-2008
ORDER
Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.610 of 2007 of
Mannuthy Police Station for offences punishable under Sections
392, 411, 413 and 414 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. seeks his
enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 10-01-2008.
2. The application was opposed on behalf of the
prosecution.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that eventhough charge-sheet has been filed in this
case, the same was beyond the statutory period stipulated under
Sec. 167 (2) Cr.P.C. and since the petitioner was not informed of
his right to default bail, the extension of his remand beyond the
statutory period was null and void and on that view the
petitioner should be granted the benefit of default bail.
4. I cannot agree. No doubt, the Magistrate had an
obligation to inform the petitioner of his right to bail on the
expiry of the statutory period stipulated under Sec. 167 (2)
Cr.P.C. But failure to inform the same or extension of the
remand beyond the statutory period cannot give rise to a right to
bail to the petitioner after the submission of the final report
B.A. No. 3148 of 2008 -:2:-
under Sec. 173 (2) Cr.P.C., particularly when there has been no
such request for bail on any day before the filing of the final
report .
5. Having regard to the nature of the offences, the nature
of properties involved in this case, the antecedents of the
petitioner, the relatively short duration of the judicial custody
undergone by the petitioner, and the other facts and
circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that if the petitioner is
released on bail, he will definitely influence and intimidate the
prosecution witnesses and will also indulge in the very same
crimes. There is also the likelihood of the petitioner making
himself scarce and fleeing from justice. I am, therefore, not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Since the
petitioner is languishing in custody as an undertrial prisoner the
trial court shall make an earnest endeavour to dispose of the
case expeditiously bearing in mind that the right to speedy trial
is a fundamental right engrained in Art.21 of the Constitution of
India.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)
ani.
B.A. No. 3148 of 2008 -:3:-