An accused has an indefeasible right to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the investigation is not completed and the final report is not filed within the prescribed time period.

The applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, by the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.5/2024 of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.66D of the Information Technology Act . The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 4.4.2024. 2.The gist of the prosecution case is that; the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to invest money with them by assuring him profit from the share market. Consequently, the de facto complainant transferred an amount of Rs.3,45,11,574/- to the bank accounts of the accused in various banks. However, the accused failed to pay the profit or return the capital.

Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3.Heard; Sri.K.Rakesh and Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. There are no incriminating materials to show the petitioners’ involvement in the crime. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 61 days, the investigation in the case is not complete and final report has not been laid. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to statutory bail as provided under Sec.167((2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Hence, the applications may be allowed.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the applications. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is a likelihood of them committing a similar offence. Furthermore, the petitioners are not co- operating with the Investigating Officer. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the offences alleged against the petitioners are all punishable for a period of less than ten years, that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 61 days, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been laid.

6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioners is that, they had cheated the de facto complainant to the tune of Rs.3,45,11,574/-. Accordingly, they have committed the offences punishable under Sec.420 read with Sec.120B and Sec.66D of the Information Technology Act . Indisputably, the above offences are all punishable for a period of less than ten years.

7. Subsection (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 wellfounded, 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— 2 [(a) the Magistrate may auth