1. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5575 of 2018 are Accused Nos.5 and 8; the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5576 of 2018 are Accused Nos.6, 9 and 12 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.5596 of 2018 is Accused No.10 in Crime No.31 of 2015 of Chinna Chowk Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 409, 508, 197 and 120-B R/w.34 of IPC and Section 5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999.

2. The petitioners/A-5 and A-8 are undisputedly in judicial custody since 09.01.2018 and 09.10.2017 respectively either by arrest on production or by production by P.T. warrants, as the case may be. The petitioners/A-6, A-9 and A-12 are in judicial custody since 09.01.2018, having produced on P.T. warrants, and the petitioner/A-10 is in judicial custody since 09.01.2018.

3. The petitioners/A-5 and A-8 and A-10 moved default bail applications before the learned Special Judge-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa by filing Crl.P. M.P. No.984 of 2018, 1035 of 2018 and 1064 of 2018, which ended in dismissal on 15.05.2018 and the petitioners/A-6, A-9 and A-12 moved default bail applications before the learned Special Judge-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa by filing Crl. P.M.P. Nos.1001 of 2018, 1000 of 2018 and 1002 of 2018, which ended in dismissal on 07.05.2018, respectively.

4. It is impugning the said dismissal orders with the contention of they got indefeasible right to bail, statutorily provided under Section 167 of Cr.P.C, that was not properly considered by the learned Special Judge-cum-Principal District Judge supra, in passing the respective orders, these Petitions are filed. They reiterated the contentions only in relation to the law on the aspect covered by the ‘default bail’ and in saying there is no necessity to go into the merits of the matters as per the settled expressions but for to consider the indefeasible right, and the learned Special Judge-cum-Principal District Judge in passing the dismissal orders went wrong in saying the default bail is not entitled as if without even basis and thereby they are entitled to the default bail to be considered by setting-aside the respective dismissal orders supra.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions and supported the impugned orders of the learned Special Judge-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa.

6. Heard both sides at length and perused the entire material on record including observations in the impugned dismissal orders.

7. The law is fairly settled at least from the Constitution Bench expression of the Apex Court in Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through C.B.I., Bombay. Undisputedly, in these cases, the punishment provided for any of the offences is only up to 10 years and for one of the offences upto life and thus the charge sheet must be filed from the very wording of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. within 90 days from the date of respective remand and, if not filed, for that default, in non-compliance with the statutory period to file the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. read with 167(2) Cr.P.C.., the accused are entitled to the ‘default bail’, which is an indefeasible right to avail. Even there is no any controversy as to the default bail is to be granted is not from the date of default till filing of charge sheet as a default bail once granted will enure till end of trial, that cloud is also cleared by the Apex Court. It was way back in 1996 in the expression covered by Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh Vs. State of Maharashtra the Apex Court deprecated the practice of some Courts keep the application for ‘default bail’ pending for some days so to file charge sheet in the meantime for such a course must be very strongly and vehemently discouraged, and it is reiterated that no subterfuge should be resorted to, to defeat the indefeasible right of the accused for ‘default bail’ when the statutory period for filing the charge sheet or Challan expires and for timely non-submission of the charge