Kerala High Court denies statutory bail to SFI State Secretary Arshom PM

The Kerala High Court recently declined to grant bail to State Secretary of Students' Federation of India (SFI), Arshom PM, who was arrested for violating the bail conditions imposed on him by the Court [Arshom PM v State of Kerala]..Justice Viju Abraham opined that Arshom is not entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because his incarceration was not for the reason that investigation could not be completed within the stipulated period, but because he violated the conditions in the bail order for having been involved in 12 crimes after the bail was granted. "The custody now of the petitioner cannot be treated to be for the purpose of investigation as envisaged under Section 167(2) CrPC. The petitioner who is continuing in custody for having abused the freedom/liberty granted to him as per the order (granting bail) 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 said in its order..Arshom PM, along with another person were arrested in 2019 in a relation to a crime registered alleging that the two tresspassed into the rented residence of the de-facto complainant with the intention to commit culpable homicide and then proceeded to attack him with deadly weapons, injuring the complainant in the process. After spending 56 days in custody, he was granted bail by the High Court, subject to some conditions, one among which was that the petitioner should not be involved in any other crimes while out on bail.In February 2022, the complainant moved the High Court to cancel the bail. The Court allowed the same noting that the petitioner had violated the said condition. He was arrested and remanded to custody in June.Arshom then approached a Magistrate Court and later a Sessions Court seeking statutory bail but his pleas were rejected both times..Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that on completion of 60 days, the petitioner has the right for statutory bail as provided under Section167(2) CrPC as has been held in many Supreme Court judgments.Relying on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Sabu KA v Central Bureau of Investigation, it was contended that even though the detention of the petitioner was in two spells, the same would be counted together for granting statutory bail, which in this case would be well above 60 days..The bail plea was opposed by both Senior Public Prosecutor CK Suresh, representing the State, as well as advocate V Vinay, representing the de-facto complainant who was impleaded as an additional respondent in the case.It was argued that since the petitioner has misused the freedom granted to him by the Court once before, he cannot now claim the right of statutory bail, especially since he was not remanded to judicial custody in connection with any investigation but the remand was consequent to re-arrest after the cancellation of bail.Relying on the judgment in Ranjith @ Kadavi Ranjith v State of Kerala, it was contended that even a statutory bail granted under Section 167(2) could be revoked under Section 439(2) CrPC when the accused misuses the liberty granted as per the bail order. .The Court concurred with the arguments of the respondents that grant of statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC applies when the investigating agency fails to complete the investigation in the stipulated time frame.The Court said that even though the charge sheet has not been laid in the instant case which arose nearly 4 years ago, the case of the petitioner is not one in which he is continuing in custody due to any laches on the part of the investigating agency.Therefore, the Court dismissed the bail plea..[Read Order]