Muhammed Bilal 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 Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.2271/2023 of the Info park Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (four in number) alleging to have committed the offences under Sections 380 and 381 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 18.12.2023.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that: the first accused, who was employed as a Sales Executive at Jain Tuffnel Gardens, along with the other accused committed theft of 90 Door frames and 350 window grills worth Rs.8,26,000/- kept at the above premises. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. E.A.Haris, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are absolutely innocent of the accusation levelled against them. They are the sole breadwinners of the family. They have no complicity in the crime. The accused 1 and 2 have already been enlarged on bail by the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam, in Crl.M.C.No.3754/2023 on 30.12.2023. The investigation of the case is practically complete. The petitioners have been languishing in jail for the last twenty days. Hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, he submitted that the investigation of the case is practically complete. If the petitioners are let off on bail, they may be directed to cooperate with the investigating agency.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record and taking note of the fact that the accused 1 and 2 have already been enlarged on bail on 30.12.2023 by the Court of Sessions and that further detention of the petitioners is unnecessary, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Thus, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing separate bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, one of them shall be a native of the State of Kerala, 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 alternate Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. And 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 he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer;

(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  of  Delhi  and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].