ORDER

Petitioners, two in number, who are common in all the petitions, seek their enlargement on bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short the Code, in three crime cases registered at different Police Stations. In the above crimes, all of them, accused persons, six in number, in common, are proceeded for offences punishable under sections 120B,417, 468, 471 and 420 read with section 34 IPC and Sections 65, 66C and 66D of Information Technology Act. Petitioners are arrayed as fourth and fifth accused among the accused in all the crimes. The gist of accusation in the crimes, based on complaints separately filed by respective Manager of a Scheduled Bank,  2 namely, Federal Bank, is that accused using fake and forged ATM cards fradulently withdrew large sum of cash from the accounts of bank through several ATM centres.

2. Against the accused in the three crimes, all of them, concededly, several crimes have been registered in the State and also in some other States on similar allegations imputed as referred to above. A detailed narration of the allegations imputed against the accused in common, or of petitioners proceeded as fourth and fifth accused, is not warranted since the only question posed for consideration in the bail applications rests on a limited and narrow compass whether an accused person formally arrested while he continued in judicial custody in another crime is competent or entitled to seek bail under section 437 of the Code before the Magistrate, or Section 439 of the Code before the Sessions Court/High Court.

3. Petitioners for seeking bail have set forth a common case thus: Against petitioners and other 3 common accused twenty five cases are registered at different police stations imputing them of withdrawing cash using fake and forged ATM cards at different ATM Centres in different parts of the country. After the arrest of these petitioners on 25.6.2012 in one such crime, namely, Crime No.456/2012 of Kollam East Police Station, on production before the magistrate they were remanded to judicial custody, and, during the continuance of such custody, they were formally arrested in the three crimes covered by the present petitions, namely, Crime No.1009/2012 of Kattakkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, Crime No.725/2012 of Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam, and Crime No.1027/2012 of Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam. Particulars of the date on which they were arrested in the aforesaid crimes have not been given; but, that is of little significance since their formal arrest in all the three crimes is conceded by Public Prosecutor with a reservation that such formal arrests were made during their 4 judicial custody ordered in different crimes. Petitioners are on bail in twenty two cases out of the twenty five cases registered against them and in view of the formal arrest effected against them in the three crimes covered by these petitions they continue in detention in jail, is their case to seek release on bail stating that they have solvent persons to stand as sureties for them.

4. In B.A. 4154/2013 relating to Crime 1009/2012 of Kattakkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the application moved for bail before the magistrate was not entertained but returned and, therefore, petitioners have directly approached this court to seek bail under section 439 of the Code. In B.A.4155/2013 relating to Crime 725/2012 of Panangad Police Station, concededly, without approaching the magistrate petitioners have directly moved for bail before this court. In B.A.No.4156/2013 relating to crime 1027/2012 of Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam, after bail 5 was declined by magistrate and also sessions judge they have approached this court. Annexure A produced with the above petition is the order passed by the sessions judge. Some statements made by sessions judge in paragraph 2 of his order that petitioners had moved the magistrate for bail when they cont