Jinalul Islam vs State Of Kerala

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J

This is an application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.327 of 2023 of Karimannoor Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections457, 461, 511, 380 and 427 r/w 34 IPC.

The prosecution case is that on 11.05.2023, between 03.10 AM and 03.50 AM, the petitioners trespassed into the ATM counter of South Indian Bank, Karimannoor Branch and attempted to commit theft by breaking open the ATM. Even though no cash could be taken away by the petitioners, consequent to their acts, damages were sustained to the ATM. The crime was registered in such circumstances and they were arrested on 15.05.2023. Since then, they have been under judicial detention. This application for regular bail is submitted in such circumstances.

Heard Sri.P.S.Anishad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of all the allegations and they were falsely implicated in the crime. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said application by pointing out that there are ample materials indicating the role of the petitioners. Petitioners have caused serious damage to the ATM machine. It is also pointed out that all the petitioners are natives of Assam and if they are released on bail, there is every probability of absconding and it will affect the conduct of the trial. However, it is confirmed that the investigation is already over and the final report is submitted.

I have gone through the records. It is true that there are specific materials against the petitioners. However, it is a fact that the petitioners are under judicial detention since 15.05.2023. The investigation is already over and the final report has been submitted. No criminal antecedents of the petitioners are brought to my notice. Even though the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said application by pointing out that they are natives of Assam and chances of absconding are high, I am of the view that the same cannot be a reason to deny bail to the petitioners. Aforesaid apprehension can be addressed by incorporating appropriate conditions to ensure the presence of the petitioners. In such circumstances, this application is allowed subject to following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. One of such sureties shall be a native of State of Kerala.

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the trial court as and when required.

(iii) The petitioners shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him.

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

(v) The petitioners shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of the trial Court.

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