NISHIL Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is an accused person, who was granted default bail under the proviso (a) to Section 167(2), Cr. P.C., which bail was cancelled later under Section 439(2), Cr. P.C., entitled to invoke the proviso to S. 167(2), Cr. P.C. again later Will the fact that the final report was not filed within 60/90 days from the date of the remand after first arrest or the date of subsequent arrest on cancellation of bail entitle him for such default bail again These interesting questions are raised in this application filed by the petitioner, who faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 120-B and 302 r/w. 149, IPC.

(2.) To the crucial and vital facts first. The petitioner is one of the 11 accused persons, who have by now been arrayed as accused in the case. He is the 11th accused. The alleged incident took place on 26-7-2005. The crux of the allegations is that accused 1 and 2 entertained business rivalry against the deceased, one Thilakan. They were all engaged in single digit lottery business. Accused 1 to 7 allegedly conspired to do away with the said Thilakan. Accused 8 to 11 subsequently joined as conspirators. In prosecution of the conspiracy hatched, accused 3 and 8 to 11 allegedly proceeded on the date of the incident in a Maruti car. They were armed with dangerous weapons. They, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly and in pursuance of the conspiracy, attacked the deceased with dangerous weapons on 26-7-2005. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on 31-7-2005. The petitioner is allegedly a hired assassin. He was arrested on 20-8-2005. He continued in custody. He was granted default bail as per order dated 21-11-2005 under the proviso to Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. He allegedly abuses the freedom and liberty granted to him. He did not comply with the conditions imposed. The bail granted to him was hence ordered to be cancelled under Section 439(2), Cr. P.C. He was arrayed subsequently while he was on bail, in four crimes, including crimes punishable under Sections 302, 308 and 402, IPC and the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act.

(3.) The petitioner was in the meantime arrested on 10-2-2007 as accused in another crime. He was produced before Court on production warrant in the instant crime on 2-5-2007. A period of 90 days has elapsed from 2-5-2007 on 2-8-2007. Final report has not been filed so far. Accused 8 and 9 have not been arrested so far. Investigation is still continuing. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with an application for regular bail.