Mohammed Shaduli vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the second accused in Crime No.387/2024 of the Ernakulam South Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 r/w Section 24 of the Emigration Act. The petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: the accused, in furtherance of their intention, on 10.03.2024, called the defacto complainant and others and conducted an interview for the post of helper in Azarbaijan at their office in Ernakulam, which caused him a loss of Rs.2,000/-. However, the accused did not provide a job as promised by them. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.P.E. Sajal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Shynimol. the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of Annexure A1 would substantiate that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 would not be attracted. The petitioner was only an employee of the firm. He has no active involvement in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The  learned  Public  Prosecutor  opposed  the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that the other accused have to be apprehended. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.03.2024 and he does not have criminal antecedents.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, and the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.03.2024, that the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete and recovery has been effected, and further that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

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 Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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 (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].