IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH APRIL 2008 / 27TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2360 of 2008() ----------------------------- (In Crime No.532/2007 of Mannuthy Police Station) .................... APPLICANT : 2ND ACCUSED (IN CUSTODY) ----------------------------------------- PRATHEESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.PONNU THARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, GIRILINE, ANCHERICHIRA 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.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== B.A. NO.2360/08 & 2362 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 16th day of April 2008 ORDER Accused 2 and 3 in Crime 532/07 of Mannuthy Police Station have filed these petitions under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail. The allegation against the accused is that the second accused, petitioner in B.A.2360/08 was riding motor cycle KL 8 AL 2025 with first accused as pillion rider and when the de facto complainant, a woman pedestrain, was walking along the side of the road accused stopped the motor cycle as if to enquire something and first accused slapped on her face and snatched away the gold chain weighing 1 ¼ sovereigns and escaped in the motor cycle and the stolen article was disposed through third accused, petitioner in B.A.2362/08. Petitioners have moved for bail before the Magistrate and thereafter before the Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed B.A.2360 & 2362 of 2008 2 the petitions after perusing the case diary and finding that the accused are involved in several similar cases. The petitioner in B.A.2362/08 submitted that he was arrested on 31.10.07 and final report was not submitted within the period as provided under section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore learned Magistrate should have released him on bail and the fact that petitioner did not apply for bail exercising the right available under section 167(2) due to their ignorance is not a ground to deny it and learned Magistrate has a duty to inform an accused of the right available under the statute and they were not informed the right and so petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. 2. On hearing the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor, I do not find that on nature of the offences and antecedents of the petitioners they are entitled to be released on bail at this stage. Considering the nature of the offence and that petitioners were involved in B.A.2360 & 2362 of 2008 3 several offence of this nature, failure to submit the final report as provided under section 167(2) of the Code is not a ground to release them on bail, after the final report was submitted. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006