Niju Peter vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 2943 Ker

Crl.M.C.No.1662/2023                   1




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
       MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944
                            CRL.MC NO. 1662 OF 2023
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 106/2023 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
                          COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

              NIJU PETER,
              AGED 34 YEARS
              S/O. V P PETER, H.NO.14/1916, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, A P
              JOSEPH ROAD, CHULLIKKAL, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI, PIN -
              682005
              BY ADVS.
              RAHUL SASI
              NEETHU PREM
              MANU K. MURALI


RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

      1       STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
              PIN - 682031
      2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
              PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN -
              672025

OTHER PRESENT:

              SR.PP.RENJITH GEORGE



      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.1662/2023                   2




                                V.G.ARUN J.
                     -------------------------------------
                         Crl.M.C. No.1662 of 2023
                      ---------------------------------
                 Dated this the 13th day of March 2023


                                  ORDER

The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.731/2022 of

Palarivattom Police Station registered for offences punishable under

Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 28/7/2022 and

is continuing in custody. The maximum period of custody of 180 days

was to be over by 26/1/2023. In the meanwhile, the prosecutor filed

an application under Section 36 A(4) for extension on 10/1/2023. The

application was considered on 11/1/2023 and the impugned order

passed on 12/1/2023, extending the time for completing the

investigation and filing the final report by two months. Final report was

thereafter filed on 27/2/2023.

2. Adv.Rahul Sasi appearing for the petitioner, contended that the

petitioner's valuable right under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. has been

defeated by Annexure A6 order extending the time for completion of the

investigation granted in the petition under Section 36A(4) submitted by

the Pubic Prosecutor. In elaboration, it is submitted that the petitioner

was not served with notice or produced before the court while deciding

to extend the period for completion of the investigation. Section 167(2)

mandates the presence of the accused when the request for extension

is taken up for consideration. Further, the details of the investigation

so far conducted and reason for extending the period for completion of

the investigation were not satisfactorily explained. The hasty manner

in which Annexure A6 was passed indicates non- application of mind by

the court.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Annexure A6 does not

warrant interference since it was passed after taking into consideration

all relevant aspects. Even otherwise, investigation having been

completed and final report filed within the extended time limit, the

petitioner cannot assail the legality of Annexure A6 now.

4. Although I find some merit in the contentions put forth by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, since no application under section

167(2) seeking default bail was pending on the date on which 180 days

of the petitioner's custody got completed, no purpose will be served by

quashing Annexure A6 at this point of time particularly when the final

report is filed.

5. I am therefore of the opinion that the contentions now urged

can be put forth before the Trial court as and when the petitioner's

moves an application for regular bail. In such event, the trial court shall

consider those contentions along with other factors highlighted by the

petitioner and take appropriate decision on the bail application.

Crl.M.C.is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE dpk