ORDER : 5th accused in SC No. 845/2016 of Addl.Asst.Sessions Court, Iringalakkuda for offences punishable under sections 457, 461, 380, 436, 120(b) read with section 34 IPC seeks bail. 2. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, some time in between the nights of 27/1/2018 and 28/1/2018 and 28/1/2018 and 29/1/2018, accused, totaling to 9 in numbers, committed theft of 15 kgs of gold ornaments worth Rs.4 Crores and, Rs. 6 Lakhs in cash from the locker of a jewellery owned by the defacto complainant. It was alleged that, the accused had broken open the exhaust fan of the bath room wall of the jewellery building and had access to the jewellery. It was alleged that they had used iron crow bar, gas cutter and pick axe to gain entry. Complaint was laid. Crime was registered and a special investigating team conducted investigation. In the course of investigation, it was found that few persons from outside the State had reached the locality and had committed theft. Accused 1 to 3 who belong to Bihar, Jarkhand and West Bengal were arrested from their state in February 2018. Petitioner, who belongs to State of Jarkhand was arrested on 8/4/2018. Accused Nos. 4 and 6 to 9 are absconding. Substantial quantity of gold ornaments were recovered from the accused who were arrested. 3. After completion of the investigation against accused 1 to 3, a split final report was laid. against them. After the arrest of accused No.5, investigation continued and final report was laid. Crime was registered and the matter is now pending as SC No. 848/2018 before the Addl. Asst. Sessions Court, Iringalakkuda. 4. The premise on which bail is sought is that, regarding accused 1 to 3, a split charge was filed on 9/4/2018. It was accepted by the court. Thereafter, as against petitioner herein, split charge was filed on 8/6/2018. It was returned with a direction to produce the certified copies of certain documents. Final report was thereafter laid only on 25/9/2018. Claiming that final report was not laid within the statutory period and hence, the petitioner is entitled for default bail, petitioner has approached this court. 5. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was arrested on 8/4/2018 from Jarkhand. Charge against him was laid on 8/5/2018 within time. However, it was returned for production of certified copies. It was re-submitted on 25/9/2018. 5. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was arrested on 8/4/2018 from Jarkhand. Charge against him was laid on 8/5/2018 within time. However, it was returned for production of certified copies. It was re-submitted on 25/9/2018. According to the investigating officer, after the return of the split charge, certified copies were obtained in August 2018. However, due to incessant rain and consequent floods, documents got damaged. After collecting the documents, they were re-submitted on 25/9/2018. 6. Claiming bail, learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on the decision reported in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam( 2017 (4) KHC 470 ) as well as Achpaland Ors. v. State of Rajasthan ( 2018 (4) KLT 664 ). In Rakesh Kumar's case, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that, right for default bail accrues after the statutory period, in case charge sheet is not filed. It was held that procedure for obtaining default bail being a matter of personal liberty, court cannot and should not be too technical and must lean in favour of personal liberty. It was further held that in the case of default bail, whether accused makes a written or oral application is of no consequence. 7. In Achpal's case (supra) Supreme Court had dealt with the question of default bail. Relying on the decision in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra ( 2001 (5) SCC 453 ), it was held that on expiry of statutory period , indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account of default by the investigation agency in completion of the investigation. 8. Relying on the above decisions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that,in the case at hand, an indefeasible right has accrued and the petitioner is entitled for bail. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision in Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra(2011 KHC 4874), wherein the Supreme Court had relied on the earlier decision in Uday's case. In Sadhwi's case Supreme Court observed that though the right to get default bail is indefeasible, it is always not a unquantified right In that decision, it was held that right under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. to be released on bail on default, if charge sheet is not filed within the prescribed period, from the date of first remand, is not an absolute or indefeasible right. It was held that the said right would be lost if charge sheet is filed and would not survive after filing of the charge sheet. It was clarified that even if an application for bail is filed on the ground that charge sheet was not filed within 90 days, but before the consideration of the same and before being released on bail, if charge sheet is filed, the said right to be released on bail would be lost. After filing of the charge sheet, if the accused is to be released o bail, it can only be on merits, it was held. To reach this conclusion, Supreme Court had relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Sanjay Dutt v. State ( 1994 (5) SCC 410 ). Reasoning of it was based on Uday Mohanlal's case, in which three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered the scope of expression “If already not availed of”. It was held that, even if an application for bail is filed on the ground that charge sheet was not filed within prescribed period, before consideration of the same and being released on bail, if charge sheet is filed, the said right to be released on bail, can be only on merits. This proposition seems to be in tune with the decisions in Bhupindir Singh v. Jarnal Singh ( 2006 (4) KLT 460 ) and in Shino Paul v. State ( 2010 (1) KLT 339 ). 10. In the case at hand, as mentioned above, final report was laid on 25/9/2018. Petitioner had filed CMP No. 6342/2018 seeking bail by default. By Annexure A1 order it was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 23/8/2018. Petitioner did not pursue the claim for default bail thereafter. After the committal to the Sessions Court, MP No. 978/2018 was filed in SC No. 845/2018 which was dismissed by order dated 4/11/2011. It was only thereafter, the present bail application was filed. 11. In the light of the above factual scenario, I feel that the decision in Sadhwi Pragyna (cited supra) is squarely applicable to the case at hand. On Evaluating the facts of the case, it evident that a very serious offence has been allegedly committed. Quantity involved is substantially huge. It is seen on record that, accused were apprehended from the distant States after great difficulty. On Evaluating the facts of the case, it evident that a very serious offence has been allegedly committed. Quantity involved is substantially huge. It is seen on record that, accused were apprehended from the distant States after great difficulty. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance of he absconding and repeating the offence. It is likely that, he will not be available for trial. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, bail application is dismissed.