MUHAMED SAHIBULLAH @ MUHAMED SAMIYALLAH & ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by these two petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 925 days in preferring the main revision case against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4262 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, by order dated 10.11.2014, in Crime No.746 of 2014. The first petitioner had been arrested on 07.08.2014 and remanded to judicial custody on 08.08.2014 and the second petitioner was arrested on 08.08.2014 and remanded to judicial custody on 09.08.2014. The alleged offences against the accused persons were under Sections 341, 307, 302, 153(A) and 120(B) of IPC and under Section 16(1)(a), 17, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'].

(2.) It seems that, since these two petitioners had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.08.2014 and 09.08.2014 respectively, they moved an application before the Sub Court on 10.11.2014 for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the petitioners, they moved the said petition for statutory bail on the ground that since the statutory period of 90 days of their judicial remand had come to an end on 07.11.2014 and 08.11.2014 they would be entitled to get statutory bail and accordingly, the said petition was moved on 10.11.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.4262 of 2014, before the Principal Sessions court, Tiruvallur.

(3.) The said application for statutory bail moved by these two petitioners along with other accused persons was heard and dismissed by the learned judge, by his order dated 10.11.2014, on the ground that the learned Public Prosecutor has already filed a petition on 16.10.2014, under Section 43(D) of the Act seeking extension of time for investigation and the same had been allowed by the court extending time for investigation by a further period of three months(90 days), in a whole 180 days. Therefore, under the said circumstances, the petition filed by these two petitioners under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., could not be entertained and accordingly, it was dismissed.