Anil Kumar R vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 5 and 8 in crime No.1275/2023 of the Meenangadi Police Station, Wayanad, registered against the accused (10 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.365 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 15.12.2023.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that: around 8.30 p.m on 07.12.2023 the accused went in three cars and intercepted a car in which the defacto-complainant and his friend were travelling and committed robbery of Rs.20 lakh from the car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. Vishnu Bhuvanendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusation levelled against them. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime. Even as per Annexure AI FIR the petitioners have not been named as an accused. Similarly, in the remand application, the petitioners' vehicle number has not been mentioned. Subsequently, the police after investigation have filed an additional report stating that the car belonging to the petitioners' father bearing Reg.No.KL 58 S 9355 was seen as escorting the other three cars in which the other accused were travelling. The above allegation is only a figment of the prosecution allegation and to implicate the petitioners in the crime. The petitioners are twin brothers and are only 23 years of age. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 45 days. The investigation in the case, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, is practically complete. Recovery has been effected. The petitioners' continued detention is unnecessary. The petitioners have also no criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He contended that the petitioners had escorted the other accused who were driving three other vehicles. The investigation is in progress. The petitioners have committed a heinous crime. If the petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of them tampering with the evidence, interfering with the investigation and intimidating the witnesses. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents other than for driving their vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and committing the offence under Section 279 of IPC. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly after going through Annexure A1 FIR and the remand report and also taking note of the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 15.12.2023, which is more than 45 days as on today, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, they are entitled to be released on bail, but subject to stringent conditions.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on their executing a separate 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioners 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 petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail;

(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passport, they 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].