IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1134 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.112/09 OF PALLICKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- AJI @ ANI, S/O.SATHYAN, SARATH BHAVANAM THOKKAD MURI, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE, VARKALA, NOW AT CHIRAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, EZHIPURAM LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR, CIRCLE OFFICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO.1135 OF 2010 AND OTHERS, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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