Abdul Azeez vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Petitioner is the 8th accused in Crime No.638/2020 of the Mannuthi Police Station, Thrissur, alleging offences under Sections 344, 324, 294B, 506(2), 364A, 365 and 395 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The prosecution case is that on 25.05.2020, the accused in prosecution of the common object, kidnapped the son of the defacto complainant and her husband from Mannuthy and after demanding ransom from the defacto complainant, forced her and her daughter to execute sale deeds in the name of the 8th accused and thereby committed the offences alleged.

Shri.R.Sudhish,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner contended that the 8th accused was arrested on 23.08.2022 and that the interrogation of the petitioner is practically over. It was further submitted that except A2 and A9 all other accused have been arrested and even released on bail. In such circumstances, no purpose will be served in continuing the detention of the petitioner. It was also submitted that the petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed and is also ready to co-operate with the investigation.

Shri.T.R.Tarin, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the grant of bail and contended that the petitioner is the mastermind behind the kidnapping and in forcing the execution of the sale deeds. It was also submitted that the life of the defacto complainant itself will be in danger if petitioner is released on bail and also that the other accused already arrested were released only after a longer period of detention.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature requiring continued detention.

I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the case diary. Even though the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious  in nature, I  am  of  the view that  since interrogation of the petitioner is completed, the continued detention is not required.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) Petitioner shall not threaten, intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses including the defacto complainant; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the defacto complainant or her family members.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not enter into the limits of Kothamangalam Police Station, where the defacto complainant and her family are residing.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction and shall surrender the passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If the petitioner does not possess a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.