K.T. SANKARAN, J

1. The petitioner in these Bail Applications is Dr. Harish Babu Maddineni. He is an accused in hundreds of cases of similar nature.

2. Bail Applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed by a detailed order dated 31st October, 2011 (reported in 2011(4) KLT 637). For the sake of convenience, the facts of the case as narrated in 2011 (4) KLT 636 are extracted below:

“6. The prosecution case is the following: The petitioner started a Company, namely, Nano Excel Enterprises Private Limited and it was registered at Hyderabad on 12-7-2007. In January 2010, the petitioner started another company under the name and style Nano Excel Power Corporation Limited. On 26-2-2010, the name of the company was changed as Nano Excel Corporation Limited. The accused collected crores of rupees from the general public under the guise of marketing products and also under the guise of providing shares in an alleged 100 MV Power plant at Arunachal Pradesh. Wide publicity was given through media and otherwise by the petitioner that the Nano Excel Power Corporation had entered into an agreement with the Government of Arunachal Pradesh for establishing a 100 MV Power Plant at Arunachal Pradesh. Believing the promises given by the accused, hundreds of persons took shares in the Power Project. It is also alleged that under the guise of marketing nano products, the accused collected crores of rupees from the general public after supplying poor quality and low cost products at high rates. Even according to the statement given by the petitioner to the Crime Branch, he had collected Rupees 347 crores from the general public. The customers deposited crores of rupees at the Thrissur office of the company. Products alleged to the nano products are not available in open market. At the inception, the Company started a package of Rs.4,000/- for their products. Later, the face value of the package was increased to Rupees five thousand, then to six thousand and lastly to Rupees twelve thousand. The modus operandi was that if a person deposited money, the company would give him an ID number and he would be a distributor. Only a distributor who holds ID number could purchase products from the company. The distributor would get commission if he enrolls new members. Huge amounts were being paid to the so called distributors. The accused offered a return of Rs.1,30,000/- in a week to a person who deposited Rs.12,000/-, apart from the royalty income of Rs.1,80,000/-. The activities in which the accused indulged themselves was a money circulation scheme under the guise of selling poor quality and low cost products, with an intent to make quick and easy money. False representations were made to the public in order to collect huge amounts and thus the accused cheated the public.”

3. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was arrested on 31.8.2011 at Hyderabad and he was handed over to the Kerala Police. It is also stated that the formal arrest of the petitioner was recorded by the police on 12.9.2011 and he is in judicial custody.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the formal arrest of the petitioner was recorded in these cases on 22.9.2011 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since no charge sheet was filed within the time provided under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that though the formal arrest of the petitioner was recorded in some of the cases on 22.9.2011, the petitioner was produced before various courts on different dates on production warrant and for the purpose of considering whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail, the actual date of remand to judicial custody alone should be taken note of.

6. Sri.Rajit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied on the decision in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra ((2001) 5 SCC 453) and con