IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1134 of 2010()
1. AJI @ ANI, S/O.SATHYAN, SARATH BHAVANAM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU. M.P
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :10/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.Nos.1134, 1135, 1136,
1137 & 1138 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure by Aji @ Ani, who is one of the
accused in five crimes registered in different police stations for
the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the allegation against the petitioner and the other accused in the
cases is that they committed theft of three autorickshaws, one
jeep and one motor bike.
3. The details regarding Bail Application No., Crime No.,
name of the police station and rank of the petitioner as accused
are shown below:
——————————————————————————————
BA No. Crime No. Name of Police Rank
Station
———————————————————————————————–
1134/2010 112/09 Pallikkal Police Station 1st accused
1135/2010 134/10 Varkala Police Station 3rd accused
1136/2010 621/09 Kadakkal Police Station 3rd accused
1137/2010 85/09 Anchuthengu Police 1st accused
Station
1138/2010 135/10 Varkala Police Station 2nd accused
—————————————————————————————–
BA No.1134/2010 & conn. cases 2
4. It is stated that the petitioner was arrested by
Chavara police on 25.12.2009. It was noticed that in respect of
the different offences committed within the limits of different
police stations, separate crimes were registered. Therefore, the
respective cases were transferred to those police stations and
the formal arrest of the petitioner was recorded on different
dates in different crimes. The dates of the formal arrest are not
clearly known and specific instructions have not been furnished
to the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned
Public Prosecutor that in Crime No.135 of 2010 of Varkala Police
Station (Bail Application No.1138 of 2010), the investigation was
completed and charge sheet was filed. In that case, formal
arrest of the petitioner was recorded on 9.2.2009.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
investigation could not be completed in four cases since all the
accused persons were not arrested.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is a motor mechanic and that he was working as
such in the motor workshop. It is submitted that the petitioner
is not involved in the offence. The learned counsel for the
BA No.1134/2010 & conn. cases 3
petitioner also submitted that since the petitioner was arrested
on 25.12.2009 and since charge sheet was not filed in the cases
(except in one case), the petitioner is entitled to default bail
under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in those cases where charge sheet is not filed within
the time prescribed.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
dates of formal arrest of the petitioner in the different cases are
not readily available and that if the petitioner is entitled to
default bail, he could very well apply before the Magistrate’s
court concerned for such a statutory relief.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
view that if the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail under the
proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he
can very well apply before the Magistrate’s court concerned for
that relief. Though bail can be granted invoking the proviso to
Section 167(2) in these Bail Applications as well, such a course is
not being resorted to, since the correct details regarding the
formal arrest are not available. It is true that final report was
filed in Crime No.135 of 2010 of Varkala Police Station.
BA No.1134/2010 & conn. cases 4
However, I am not disposing of the Bail Application on the merits
in that case as well (Bail Application No.1138 of 2010) and the
petitioner is given liberty to apply for bail afresh before the
Magistrate’s court concerned, in spite of the fact that the
application for bail filed by the petitioner was rejected earlier by
the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally as per
the order dated 14.1.2010.
9. It is made clear that I have not considered the Bail
Applications on the merits and I have relegated the petitioner to
the Magistrate’s courts concerned giving the petitioner liberty to
apply for regular bail in Crime No.135 of 2010 of Varkala Police
Station and for default bail or regular bail in other cases.
The Bail Applications are disposed of as above with liberty
to the petitioner to approach this Court if occasion arises.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl