Anil Kumar vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.91/2024 of Malappuram Police Station, registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 15(4) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007(‘Act’, in short). The petitioner was arrested on 13.01.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 12.01.2024, at around 15.45 hours, the accused violated the order of the Thrissur Range Deputy Inspector General issued under the Act, restraining his entry to Malappuram District. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard; Smt. Kavya P.R., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Shyni V.O., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.01.2024, which is 30 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete. The petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. The allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner has criminal antecedents is incorrect. All the cases registered against the petitioner are for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is not complete and the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.01.2024.

On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.01.2024, and that the investigation in the case is complete, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s continuous detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh 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 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 (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. [2020 (1) KHC 663].