IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2009 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1931 Bail Appl.No.2211 of 2009 ----------------------------- CRIME No.31/2008 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION .................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.5: -------------------------------- PRASANTH KUMAR, S/O.NANDA KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, "NANDANAM", PUTHALATH HOUSE, KALAMASSERY, FERRY ROAD, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------- 1. C.I.OF POLICE, HILL PALACE CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY MR. JIKKU JACOB, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2009, ALONG WITH BA No.2617 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. Nos. 2211 and 2617 OF 2009 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of May, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner in B.A.No.2211/09 is the 5th accused in Crime No.31/08 of Thrikkakara Police Station for offence under section 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with 149 IPC. The petitioner in B.A.No.2617/09 is the 14th accused in the aforesaid crime. The 5th accused was arrested on 14.12.2008 and the 14th accused was arrested on 17.1.2009. When produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva, both of them were remanded to judicial custody. Their application for bail was also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Now these petitions. 2. Today, when these petitions came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that now three months time has already been elapsed after the arrest of the petitioners and that the prosecution had failed to file the charge sheet within 90 days of the apprehension and so, the detention of the petitioners any more is hit by the proviso to section 167(2) Cr.P.C. BA.2211 & 2617/09 : 2 : 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the charge sheet has already been submitted in time. But, according to the petitioners, the charge sheet submitted has been returned. The question whether there was filing of charge sheet within 90 days after the apprehension is a matter now in dispute. 4. In the above circumstances, I find that these petitions can be disposed of with a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider whether the charge sheet is filed within the time stipulated or not and in the event the charge sheet is not filed within the time stipulated, the detention of the petitioners is hit by section 167(2) Cr.P.C. In the result, both these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider whether the charge sheet has been filed within 90 days and, if not, their application for bail shall be disposed of on merits. (P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) aks