This High Court dismissed a bail application. The court held that default bail was not available as the FIR was filed before the investigation period expired. The applicant, deemed a habitual offender, was denied bail due to risk of repeat offenses.
Bail application dismissed; court below directed to expedite committal proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 5TH BHADRA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.6066 OF 2019
CRIME NO.178/2019 OF Kuruppampady Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
LEO AGED 24 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE, MATTAPPADAN HOUSE, MUDAKKUZHA KARA, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT C/O SASI KUMAR, KARAVATTATHU HOUSE, MANAYATH HOUSE, KOOTTUMADOM BHAGAM, KEECHERIPPADY, RAYAMANGALAM, KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 545.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.L.SHYAM SRI.K.K.VINOD
RESPONDENT/S:
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AMJAD ADLI,PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.6066 OF 2019
ORDER
The petitioner is the first accused
in Crime No.178/2019 of Kuruppampady Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 341, 324 and 307 r/w Section 149 IPC.
2. The petitioner was arrested on
17.02.2019.
3. Heard.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has
opposed the application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has
submitted that the petitioner is involved in
ten other crimes of grave nature. CMP No.398/2019 was filed by the petitioner
before the court below under Section 167(2)
Bail Appl..No.6066 OF 2019
-3-
Cr.P.C. Since the final report was filed on 30.03.2019, which was prior to the expiry of the statutory period permitted for
conducting the investigation, the petitioner was not entitled to get default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the court below was perfectly justified in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to get default bail. It appears that the matter is presently pending as C.P. No.8/2019 on the files of the court below.
6. It appears that the petitioner is involved in ten other crimes of grave nature. Since it appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender, if the petitioner is released on bail at this
Bail Appl..No.6066 OF 2019
stage, there is likelihood that the petitioner will repeat similar offences.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender, I am of
the view that it is not safe to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.
In the result, this application stands dismissed.
However, the court below is directed to
expedite the committal proceedings.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
STK
//TRUE COPY//
//P.A. TO JUDGE//
1 issue framed by the court
Whether default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is available when FIR was filed before expiry of statutory investigation period.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
LEO
STATE OF KERALA
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
