ORDER

These are applications for regular bail.

2. B.A.No.5953/2022 is filed by the 1st accused, whereas B.A.

No.6792/2022 is filed by accused No.13 in Crime No.183 of 2022 of New Mahe Police Station, Kannur District registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 204, 120B and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”).

3. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused who are workers of BJP/RSS were in inimical terms with one Haridasan, a CPI(M) loyalist in connection with an incident which occurred on 08.02.2022 near to Kooloth Bhagavathi Temple in which accused Nos.10 and 11 were attacked by the said Haridasan and his friend named Angi Suran. Due to said animosity and political rivalry, the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of said Haridasan and on 21.02.2022 the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched, at 1.20 a.m. trespassed into the property of Haridasan and concealed themselves behind the bushes near to the well of the house of the said Haridasan. Immediately when the said Haridasan came to the courtyard of his house, the accused beat him using steel pipes and hacked him to death using sword and thus committed the above said offences.

4. The specific case of the petitioner in B.A. No.5953/2022, who is the first accused in the aforesaid crime, is that he was arrested on 22.02.2022 and he is in custody since then. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is eligible of statutory bail, after 90 days, if no final report is filed, going by Section 167 Cr.PC. The specific case of the petitioner is that only an incomplete final report is filed in the case and due to certain defects the same has been returned back and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for statutory bail as on the said date. The petitioner moved the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thalassery under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking default bail and the said application was rejected by Annexure 1 order. Though he also moved an application before the Court of Sessions, Thalassery, the same was also rejected by Annexure 2 order. The specific contention of the petitioner is that it is the bounden duty of the Court to inform the accused about the benefit of statutory bail and also contended that on 23.05.2022 the petitioner accrued a statutory right for grant of bail. To substantiate the said contention, the petitioner relies on the Judgment in Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [2020 (6) KLT 127(SC)] and also the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and Others v. State of Maharashtra [MANU/MH/0193/1991] to contend for the position that the petitioner is entitled for statutory bail as envisaged in Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C.

5. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution opposed the application for bail mainly contending that the petitioner is the 1st accused in the above said crime and has actively involved in the commission of the offence, inasmuch as serious overtacts of hacking the deceased with a sword along with accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 is alleged against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a person having serious criminal antecedents and he is involved in 7 other criminal cases including even offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. As regards the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled for statutory bail, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that the charge sheet was originally filed on 20.05.2022 within the statutory period and the charge sheet was returned on 21.05.2022 for curing certain defects and the same was re-submitted after curing the defects on the same day itself. Later it was returned again due to certain defects on 25.05.2022 and resubmitted after curing the defects on 30.05.2022. Therefore, on the ba