Akhil Dev. S @ Vishnu vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the third accused in Crime No.918/2023 of the Chengannur Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the accused (three in number) alleging them to have committed the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested in connection with Crime No. 817/2023 on 4.11.2023 and his arrest was formally recorded in the present crime was on 15.11.2023.

The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 14.8.2023 between 3 a.m. and 3.50 a.m., a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL 24/ L -9321, which was belonging to the de facto complainant’s friend’s father and in the possession of the de facto complainant, was stolen. The third accused had purchased the stolen property. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.

Heard; Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V. the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. He has been in judicial custody since 4.11.2023 in connection with another crime. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination could the petitioner have committed the present crime. Nonetheless, he has been in judicial custody for 73 days. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She has contended that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. There is every likelihood of the petitioner committing a similar offence, if the petitioner is let off on bail. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for 73 days, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, but subject to stringent conditions.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to 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, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier and he shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].