HARISH BABU MADDINENI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these bail applications are filed by the very same accused in Crime No: 1592/2011 of Thrissur Town West Police Station and other crimes, made mention of in the 38 other applications for bail. The offences alleged against the accused are under sections 406, 418 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC and section 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as '1978 Act' for short). This petitioner had filed application for bail on earlier occasions also in the connected crimes. The facts of the case as have been stated in earlier Bail Application No. 8135/2011 and connected cases are quoted hereunder since the main allegation is the same.

(2.) THE main thrust of the argument advanced by Sri. Rajit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that in all the aforesaid cases the Investigating Officer sought permission of the learned Magistrate to record formal arrest of the accused and after getting permission the petitioner was formally arrested in 23 cases on 1.6.2012. In the remaining 12 cases, the date of formal arrest is shown as 28.04.2012. In the first set of 23 cases, the Investigating Officer filed application for production warrant on 02.06.2012. It is argued by Sri. Rajit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that though in those 23 cases, where the date of formal arrest was 01.06.2012 and the application for production warrant was submitted on 02.06.2012 itself, the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate only on 12.06.2012. In another set of 12 cases, though the date of formal arrest was 28.04.2012 and the application for production warrant was submitted on 30.04.2012, the accused was, in fact, produced before the learned Magistrate only on 04.06.2012. Sri. Rajit would submit that despite the petitioner's arrest having been formally recorded on the dates mentioned above, the Investigating Officer has not chosen to produce the petitioner before Court on the next day or atleast within a reasonable time but the Investigating Officer has misused the provision by not producing the accused before the learned Magistrate within a reasonable time and so the indefeasible right of the accused to get released on bail, invoking the provision under section 167(2) of Cr. P.C., has been defeated by the delay in production of the accused before Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the main ground that was canvassed by the petitioner in those cases was that the statutory period for obtaining bail under section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. should commence from the date of 'formal arrest', since in those cases the accused was produced before the Magistrate several days after the formal arrest. But that contention was negatived by this Court since the period prescribed under section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. commences only from the date of production of the accused and not from the date of arrest of the accused. It is further submitted that the question as to whether the Investigating Officer can submit an application for production warrant leisurely at his whim and fancy was not the point that was advanced by the petitioner in the earlier cases. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that so far as these applications are concerned, the crucial point that arises for consideration is whether the police officer can leisurely produce the accused, whose formal arrest had been recorded several days prior to the date of production in Court. The learned Counsel submits that as per section 57 of Cr. P.C. the person arrested has to be produced before the Magistrate within twenty four hours excluding the time necessary for journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court. Therefore, according to Mr. Rajit, the accused should have been produced before the Court on the next day or at least within two or three days. The learned A.D.G.P. would submit that section 57 starts with the words 'no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested', to mean that the arrested person shall not be detained in police custody whereas in all these cases the accused was not in police custody. Though the formal arrest was recorded, the accused continued to be in judicial custody as per the Order of the Court passed in other crimes and therefore, no right of the accused was defeated in these cases, it is further argued. But Sri. Rajit would submit that if such an interpretation is given then it would be giving an unbridled discretion to the Investigating Officer to submit his application for production warrant leisurely to achieve his object of detaining the accused for an unduly long period. Therefore, even if section 57 as such may not be applicable, the principle that the arrested person should be produced before the Magistrate within a reasonable time is so explicit in that provision. Therefore, there can be no doubt that if a formal arrest is recorded by the Investigating Officer, then he must submit an application within the shortest possible period to the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction to cause production of the accused by issuing a warrant and to order remand of the accused to the judicial custody.