K.K.Salim vs State Of Kerala

R.Narayana Pisharadi, J

This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner is the third accused in the case registered as V.C 01/2021 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

The petitioner was the Section Forest Officer of the Social Forestry Range, Thiruvananthapuram. The first accused in the case was the Range Officer there. The second accused was the Range Officer of the Social Forestry Range, Attingal.

The de facto complainant is a contractor who had done some work in the Forest Department. According to the prosecution case, accused 1 to 3 had demanded an amount of Rs.70,000/- as illegal gratification from the de facto complainant for the purpose of clearing the bills for the work done by him.

On the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant, the case was registered against the accused on 15.08.2021. On the next day, a trap was laid and while receiving the amount of Rs.70,000/- from the de facto complainant, the petitioner was caught red- handed and he was arrested.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary and the statement filed by the investigating officer.

The petitioner was caught red-handed while receiving bribe from the de facto complainant. There is a strong prima facie case against him.

No doubt, the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is serious in nature.

However, the fact remains that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 17.08.2021 onwards. The question to be considered is whether further detention of the petitioner in jail is necessary for the progress of investigation of the case.

Since the petitioner has been under detention for more than 48 hours, he would have been suspended from service by now. Therefore, there is no basis for the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner would intimidate or influence the de facto complainant or other prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence by abusing or misusing his official position or power.

The statement filed by the investigating officer shows that evidence has to be collected against the other accused in the case. It is not a sufficient ground to refuse bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.08.2021. The material witnesses in the case have already been questioned by the VACB. Further detention of the petitioner in jail is not necessary to complete the investigation in an effective manner. Therefore, I find that bail can be granted to the petitioner on conditions.

Consequently, the application for bail is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court concerned.

(ii) The petitioner shall not in any manner intimidate or influence the prosecution witnesses. He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence in the case.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when directed in writing to do so.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court concerned.

(v) The petitioner shall furnish the investigating officer his mobile phone number and address for the purpose of contacting him. If any subsequent change is made with regard to such number or address, it shall be intimated by him to the investigating officer forthwith.

(vi) If the petitioner violates any of the conditions of bail, the jurisdictional court is at liberty to cancel the bail without any further orders of this Court but in accordance with law.

The case diary produced shall be returned forthwith to the Public Prosecutor concerned.