Mohammed Sahal vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 1st accused in Crime No.81/2024 of the Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.04.2024.

The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 04.02.2024, at around 22.30 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and a person named Aashik and the 2nd accused pulled down the defacto complainant and his friend (injured) and the 1st accused stabbed him with a knife on his abdomen and he suffered serious injuries. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offences. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.04.2024. Although the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 62 days, the investigation has not been completed and the final report has not been laid. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail as prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report opposing the application. The Investigating Officer has stated that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, since he is involved in six other crimes. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Moreover, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that now it is revealed that the petitioner has also involved in a total of fourteen crimes. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the offences alleged against the petitioner are all punishable for a period of less than ten years, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been laid.

The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he allegedly stabbed the defacto complainant on his abdomen and caused serious injury to him. The predicate offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 308 of the IPC. Indisputably, the maximum punishment that can be imposed for an offence under Section 308 of the IPC is seven years. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.04.2024. i.e., more than 60 days. The investigation is not complete and the final report has not been laid.

Subsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:-

Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.—(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is wellfounded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that— 2 [(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding— (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;] [(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage;] (c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. [Explanation I.—For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.] [Explanation II. —If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under clause  (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be.] [Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognised social institution.]

Interpreting sub-section (ii) of Section 167 of the Code, the Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v.State through C.B.I., Bombay [(1994) 5 SCC 410] has observed as follows:-

"53.(2)(b) The "indefeasible right" of the accused to be released on bail in accordance with Section 20(4)(bb) of the TADA Act read with Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in default of completion of the investigation and filing of the challan within the time allowed, as held in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur is a right which enures to, and is enforceable by the accused only from the time of default till the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed. If the accused applies for bail under this provision on expiry of the period of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, then he has to be released on bail forthwith. The accused, so released on bail may be arrested and committed to custody according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The right of the accused to be released on bail after filing of the challan, notwithstanding the default in filing it within the time allowed, is governed from the time of filing of the challan only by the provisions relating to the grant of bail applicable at that stage."

A three-Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 5 SCC 453], reiterated the legal proposition in Sanjay Dutt v.State through C.B.I., Bombay (supra). In paragraph 13 (3) it was opined thus:

"13. x x x x x x (3) On the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail as directed by the Magistrate.” (emphasis added)

In the instant case, as the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 62 days, the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable for a period of less than ten years and the Investigating Officer has not laid the final report till date, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail, since it is his indefeasible  right  under  Section  167(2)  of  the  Code. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

ii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

iii. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

iv. The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

v. In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

vi. Application for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

vii. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].