IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3145 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 610 OF 2007 OF AMMUTHY POLICE STATION .................... APPLICANT/2ND ACCUSED (IN CUSTODY) --------------------------------------------------- PRATHEESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.PONNU, THARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANCHERY DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bail Appl. No. 3145 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 22-05-2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.610 of 2007 of Mannuthy Police Station for an offence punishable under Sections 392 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. 3145 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. 3145 of 2008 -:3:-