Entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, based on the nature and duration of the alleged offences and the status of the investigation.

Headnote:
Bail - Statutory Bail - The court allowed the application for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the offences alleged against the petitioners were punishable for a period of less than ten years and the final report had not been laid.
Fact of the Case:

The accused filed an application for statutory bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody for allegedly committing offences punishable under Sec.420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.66(D) of the Information Technology Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the offences alleged against the petitioners were punishable for a period of less than ten years, and as the final report had not been laid, the petitioners were entitled to be released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused were entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature of the alleged offences and the status of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 167(2) of the Code, which provides for the release of an accused on statutory bail if the investigation cannot be completed within the stipulated time and the offences alleged are punishable for a period of less than ten years.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for statutory bail and directed the petitioners to be released on bail upon executing a bond, subject to certain conditions.

O R D E R

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.4/2023 of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Aluva, registered against the accused (eight in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sec.420 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 7.12.2023.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the Managing Director of the company in which the de facto complainant was working impersonated themselves as the officials of the company and sent messages to the de facto complainant and demanded him to transfer money to their accounts. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.44,47,905/- was transferred to the account of the accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. Heard; Sri.S.Justus, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. There is no material to implicate them in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sec.420 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioners. Notwithstanding the above contentions, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 7.12.2023. Even though the investigation in the case is complete, the final report has not been laid. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to statutory bail as contemplated under the proviso to sub-sec.(2) of Sec.167 of the Code. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioners have committed a grave economic offence. The investigation is still in progress. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 7.12.2023, the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable for a period of less than ten years and the final report has not been laid.

6. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, it is evident that the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable for a period of less than ten years. Even though the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 7.12.2023, the final report has not been laid. Hence, I am of the definite view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on statutory bail since it is their indefeasible right under Section 167(2) of the Code.

7. Sec.167 of the Code reads thus:

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 under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction :

PROVIDED that -

[(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the pol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document