The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C. in cases where the maximum term of imprisonment is up to ten years, leading to the entitlement of statutory bail if the charge sheet is not filed within the stipulated time.

P. Bhavadasan, J.

Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No. 48 of 2012 of Excise Range, Ernakulam for having committed offences punishable under Sections 55(a), 55D, 55E, 55F, 55G, 58 and 62 of the Abkari Act. The allegation against the petitioner and others is that on 31.5.2012 the Excise Officers seized 1728 liters of spirit contained in 54 plastic cans which were stored in the cabin of a lorry which was parked near a petrol pump at Edappally. Petitioner says that he was arrested from his work place on 10.7.2012. However, he claims that he is in no way connected with the incident as alleged by the prosecution. According to him, none of the records would show his actual involvement in the incident. He has been falsely implicated in the crime and no one has spoken about his presence at the spot or no one had identified him. The only evidence which the prosecution relies on is that the petitioner received several calls from the first accused and it was based on that fact that the petitioner has been implicated and arrested in the case.

2. Sri. Babu S. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that apart from anything else, petitioner has been in custody for more than 60 days and at any rate, he is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) (a)(ii) of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel in support of his claim relied on the decision reported in Sreerajan v. State of Kerala (2001(1) K.L.T. 827) and Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (NCT) of Delhi ((2001) 5 SCC 34). Learned counsel also referred to the decision reported in Bhupender Singh v. Jarnail Singh (AIR 2006 SC 2622) and Vinu v. State of Kerala (2011(4) K.L.T. 994). Attention was also drawn to the decision reported in Boban v. Union of India (2005(2) K.L.T. 831).

3. It is contended that the maximum punishment which the court can impose upon the petitioner who is prosecuted for the offence under Section 55(a) Abkari Act is for a term of imprisonment upto ten years. Even if the petitioner is found guilty of all the offences, the period of sentence that could be awarded is only a term of imprisonment of less than 10 years except in case of offences under Sections 55(a) and 58 wherein the maximum term of imprisonment is upto to 10 years. As the petitioner has already undergone judicial custody for 60 days, it is contended that going by Section 167(2)(a) (ii) Cr.P.C. since final report has not been filed within the stipulated time, petitioner is entitled to statutory bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand relied on the decisions reported in Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh (AIR 2006 SC 2622) and Vinu v. State of Kerala (2011(4) K.L.T. 994) and contended that the investigating officer is entitled to get 90 days as contemplated under Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Attention was drawn to the decision reported in Vinu's case (supra), wherein this court had occasion to hold that the decision in 2001(1) K.L.T. 827) is no longer a good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh's case (supra).

5. To understand the contentions, it will be appropriate to refer to Section 167 of Cr.P.C. and Section 55(a) and 58 of Abkari Act which alone are relevant for the present purpose.

Section 167 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"167. 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 well-founded, 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