HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
AGNEL MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 4725/2024
[Bail] - [Criminal Procedure] - [Sections 439, 363, 370(4), 354, 354A(1)(i) of IPC, Sections 7, 12, 11(1) of POCSO Act, 2012, Section 167 of CrPC] - [The court granted bail under Section 439 of CrPC, emphasizing the accused's right to bail after 112 days of custody without a completed investigation, as per Section 167(2) of CrPC, despite serious allegations.]
Fact of the Case:
The accused was arrested for allegedly enticing a minor girl and committing sexual offences. He claimed innocence and sought bail, arguing the investigation was incomplete and he had been in custody for over 112 days.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation was not complete and the accused had a right to bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC, given the duration of custody and the nature of the charges.
Issues: Whether the accused is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC due to the incomplete investigation and prolonged custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an indefeasible right to bail accrues after the statutory period of custody without a completed investigation, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail.
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , by the sole accused in Crime No.393/2024 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station, which is registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 370(4), 354 and 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Secs.7 and 12 read with Sec.11(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 . The petitioner’s arrest was recorded in the present crime on 2.4.2024.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 5.2.2024, the accused enticed the victim, a minor girl aged 16 years, with a sexual intent over telephone. He traficked the victim on his scooter and took her to a lodge and asked her to have sexual relationship with him and outraged her modesty. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. V.T Madhavanunni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V, the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to prove that the petitioner has committed the above offences. The Investigating Officer has deliberately implicated the petitioner in the present crime out of his previous animosity since the petitioner is an accused in crime No.262/2024 of Thaliparamba Police Station. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 112 days, the investigation in the case is not complete and final report has not been laid. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. The petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents since he is involved in another crime of a similar nature, viz., crime No.262/2024 of Thaliparamba Police Station. In that case the petitioner was enlarged on bail as per Annexure A2 order. Since the petitioner has committed heinous offences, this Court may not enlarge the petitioner on bail. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the investigation in the case is not complete and final report has not been laid.
6.The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner has committed sexual assault, trafficked the victim and outraged her modesty. The fact remains that the petitioner’s arrest was recorded on 2.4.2024, the investigation in the case is not compete and final report has not been laid. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable for a period of up to ten years.
7. Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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 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:
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.