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. 3144 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 609 OF 2007 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION .................... APPLICANTS/2ND ACCUSED (IN CUSTODY) ---------------------------------------------------- 1. PRATHEESH,AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.PONNU, THARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANCHERY DESOM,THRISSUR. 2. PRADEEP,S/O.PONNU, PALLASHANKARAN HOUSE, PALLAM COLONY, ANCHERY,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.P. RAVEENDRA BABU 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. 3144 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 22-05-2008 ORDER Petitioners who are accused Nos. 3 and 5 accused in Crime No.609 of 2007 of Mannuthy Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 392, 411 and 413 read with 34 I.P.C. seek their enlargement on bail. Petitioners were arrested on 09- 01-2008. 2. The application was opposed on behalf of the prosecution. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners are 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 petitioners were not informed of statutory period was null and void and on that view the petitioners should be granted the benefit of default bail. 4. I cannot agree. No doubt, the Magistrate had an obligation to inform the petitioners their 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 after the submission of the final report under Sec. 173 (2) Cr.P.C., particularly when there has been no such request for B.A. No. 3144 of 2008 -:2:- bail to the petitioners 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 petitioners, the relatively short duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioners and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that if the petitioners are released on bail, they 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 petitioners at this stage. Since the petitioners are languishing in custody as undertrial prisoners 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. 3144 of 2008 -:3:-