Kerala High Court Denies Default Bail To SFI Leader Saying He Got Involved In 12 Crimes While On Regular Bail

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday denied bail to the State Secretary of Students' Federation of India (SFI) who was taken into custody for violation of bail conditions imposed on him. He had allegedly got himself involved in 12 crimes while he was out on bail.

Justice Viju Abraham dismissed the bail plea finding that he was not entitled to statutory bail merely because the charge sheet was yet to be filed since the case did not come under the purview of Section 167(2) CrPC. 

"The petitioner who is continuing in custody for having abused the freedom/liberty granted to him… by getting involved in 12 other crimes thereafter, cannot be equated to a person who continues in custody without any charge sheet being filed against him." 

The Court added that this was not a case where the petitioner was continuing in jail only for the reason that investigation was not completed whereby entitling him to statutory bail.

"This is a case where regular bail was granted even before the statutory period was over but on conditions. Now the petitioner is in custody not for the reason that investigation could not be completed within the stipulated period but for the reason that he has violated the conditions in the bail order for having been involved in 12 crimes after the bail was granted." 

The 27-year-old SFI leader was the second accused in a case where a group of people trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant in 2018 with an intention to commit culpable homicide and attacked him with deadly weapons causing injuries. 

The prosecution case was that the petitioner along with four others in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by them with the intention to commit the murder of the defacto complainant, trespassed into his rented room with dangerous weapons like a knife and iron pipe, shouting to do away with the defacto complainant, physically assaulted him with these weapons, thereby causing imminent threat to life.

He was thereby arrested in 2019 under Sections 323, 324, 455, 308, 506 and 427 of the IPC. The investigation was handed over to the District Crime Branch which slapped another charge under Section 458 IPC.

However, he was released on bail two months later with conditions, including one that he shall not get involved in any other crime and that any such involvement will be a ground for cancellation of bail. 

Nevertheless, he was arrested again for violating this condition, and thereby the bail granted to him was cancelled. This cancellation of bail was challenged by the petitioner before several fora but to no avail. 

His contention was that he has been in custody for over 79 days in total and that the charge sheet had not been filed to date. It was contended that on completion of 60 days he has the right to statutory bail under S.167(2)(a)(ii) CrPC.

The de facto complainant vehemently objected to the grant of bail arguing that the petitioner was the mastermind behind the attack. It was further submitted that he was involved in more than 40 criminal cases, the details of which were produced as well. 

The Bench noted that Section 167(2)(a)(ii) speaks about grant of statutory bail if the investigation could not be completed within the period specified.

"So essentially the grant of statutory bail is due to the laches on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation within the period stipulated therein."

The Judge noted that despite the passage of 4 years, the charge sheet in the case was not ready. The Court recalled that the defacto complainant has a specific case that the petitioner being a State level student leader of the ruling party, has been given a free hand and investigating agency is colluding with him.

Further, it was evident that the bail earlier granted to the petitioner was rejected for being involved in 12 other criminal cases in total disregard to the condition in the bail order. 

"I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to statutory bail for the reason that he cannot be equated to that of an accused person who is continuing in custody for the statutory period after his arrest without a charge sheet being filed against him as the petitioner was in fact granted regular bail as per Annexure A1 order and now continuing in custody for violation of the condition in Annexure-A1 bail order for having been involved in 12 crimes after granting bail. The custody now of the petitioner cannot be treated to be for the purpose of investigation as envisaged under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C."

Therefore, it took the view that the petitioner was not entitled to statutory bail as envisaged under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The bail application was accordingly dismissed. 

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai while the respondents were represented by Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S Aneer, Prerith Philip Joseph and Sarath K.P. Senior Public Prosecutor C.K Suresh also appeared in the matter. 

Case Title: Arshom P.M v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 347

Click Here To Read/Download The Order