IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 444 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.484/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO. 107/2007 of MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANIKANDAN, S/O. NANU, PARAYIL HOUSE, KADUKKAMKUNNAM, MALAMPUZHA. 2. KUTTAYI @ RAJESH, S/O. NARAYANAN, PANJIKKARA HOUSE, KADUKKAMKUNNAM, MALAMPUZHA. 3. MURUKADAS, S/O. LATE SIVARAMAN, NAMBARPURA HOUSE, KADUKKAMKUNNAM, MALAMPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT: PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE C.I. OF KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION. (MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.107/2007). BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 444 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 107/2007 of Malampuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 341 and 302 r/w Section 149 IPC, were remanded to the judicial custody on 31.10.2007 after rejecting their bail application. The final report in the case was filed on 21.01.2008. On 31.01.2008 they were granted default bail by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad under the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The bail order did not impose any condition as enjoined by Section 437 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer acting though the Public Prosecutor filed C.M.P. No. 484/2008 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad for cancellation of the bail for the reason that the accused could not have been released on account of the alleged default on the part of the investigating agency to file the charge sheet within 90 days because the charge sheet was filed on the 90th day and therefore the accused should not have been granted CRL.R.P.NO. 444/2008 : 2: default bail and that the learned Magistrate did not impose any condition while granting bail. The said contention was upheld by the Sessions Judge and bail was cancelled as per the impugned order dated 07.02.2008. Hence this revision. 2. The learned Sessions Judge made a computation of the period by having recourse to 1995 SCC (Crl.) 830- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rustam and others. Actually it was unnecessary for the Sessions court to consider the above verdict of the Apex Court, since the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala contains specific provision regarding the computation of the period mentioned in the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Rule 22 of the Kerala Rules of Practice stipulates that while computing the period of 60 days mentioned in the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, the date of remand as well as the date of production of the accused are both to be included. If the said rule of computation is adopted, then the charge sheet was filed on the 91st day since 31.10.2007 on which day the accused were remanded to judicial custody is to be reckoned for the purpose of computation of the period and that will have to be added to the CRL.R.P.NO. 444/2008 : 3: 30 days in November, 2007, 31 days in December, 2007 and 29 days in January, 2008 thus to make up a total of 91 days. Thus the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in granting default bail to the petitioners. 3. The Magistrate did not, however, impose any condition while granting bail. To that extent, the order passed by the Magistrate cannot be sustained. Having regard to the volatile situation in the place of occurrence in question, the following conditions are imposed:- 1. The petitioners shall not enter the limits of the Malampuzha Police Station until further orders to be passed by the committal Magistrate. 2. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 3. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. This Crl.R.P is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. CRL.R.P.NO. 444/2008 : 4: rv