IMPORTANT POINT
Under section 167 of the CrPC, an accused is entitled to statutory bail, once he completes the prescribed period. Even if the accused has undergone custody in two spell in the same crime, the said period of custody can be combined to meet the ends of justice.

ORDER :

The question that emerges for consideration in this bail application is whether an accused who has undergone custody in two spells in the same crime is entitled to get the two spells combined to claim “default bail” under proviso (a) (i) to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The undisputed antecedent facts for the disposal of this bail application are:

(i) The petitioner is arrayed as the first accused in RC01(S)/2020CBI/SCB/TVPM of CBI registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short “'CBI”.) - the respondent. The crime was originally registered by the Peerumedu Police Station as Crime No.349 of 2019, which was subsequently renumbered as Crime No.390/CBI/IDK/R/2019, for offences punishable under Sections 343, 348, 323, 324, 330, 331, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(ii) The First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.349/2019 was initially registered by the Peerumedu Police Station under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “Code”), on 21.06.2019, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court, Idukki. Later, the case was taken over by the Crime Branch and renumbered as Crime No.390/CBI/IDK/R/2019. The offence was altered to Sections 343, 348, 323, 324, 330, 331, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peerumedu ( in short ''learned Magistrate”). The petitioner (then a Sub-Inspector of Police, Nedumkandam Police Station) and his team, accused two to seven , were arrayed as accused.

(iii) The prosecution allegation, in brief, is that: the petitioner and accused two to seven had taken custody of one Sri.Raj Kumar, the accused in Crime No.302/2019 of Nedumkandam Police Station, on 12.06.2019, and kept him in their illegal custody till 15.06.2019. They subjected him to physical torture. Sri.Raj Kumar was produced before the learned Magistrate on 16.06.2019, with the remand report purportedly stating that he was arrested on 15.06.2019. On 16.6.2019, the learned Magistrate remanded Sri.Raj Kumar to Sub-Jail, Peerumedu. Sri.Raj Kumar underwent treatment at the Taluk Hospital, Peerumedu and the Medical Hospital, Kottayam. On 21.06.2019, he succumbed to the injuries.

(iv) On a complaint lodged by the Assistant Prison Officer, Sub-Jail, Peerumedu, Crime No 390/CB/IDK/R/2019 was registered by Crime Branch, as against the petitioner and the other accused, for the custodial death of Sri.Raj Kumar. The petitioner was arrested on 03.07.2019. This Court, by order dated 13.08.2019 in B.A.No.5570 of 2019, enlarged the petitioner on bail.

(v) During this interregnum period, the Government of Kerala by notification issued under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, bearing G.O (Ms) No.122/2019/Home dated 16.08.2019 [SRO No.545/2019], ordered the handing over of the investigation to the CBI. Likewise, this Court by order in W.P (c) No.19978 of 2019, directed the CBI to take over the investigation. The CBI took over the investigation, and re-registered the crime as RC01(S)/2020CBI/SCB/TVPM of CBI.

(vi) The Government of Kerala challenged the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by this Court in B.A.No.5570 of 2019, enlarging the petitioner on bail, before the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No.8818/2019. The Honourable Supreme Court granted leave. By order dated 13.08.2019, Crl. Appeal No.1902 of 2019 was allowed.

(vii) The order of the Honourable Supreme Court in Crl.A No.1902 of 2019 reads as follows:

"Heard the learned counsel for the Parties.

Leave granted.

Considering the nature and the number of injuries to be 22 and considering the fact that the accused was in police custody and the previous report indicates that there was no such injury on his person, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the High Court has illegally granted the privilege of bail to the accused persons. Since the case was registered under section 302 IPC with respect to custodial death, it is not a case we