Muhammed Shamnaz vs State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor

Jobin Sebastian, J

1.The sole accused in Crime No.825 of 2025 of Thalassery Police Station, Kannur District, registered alleging commission of offence under Section 309(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, has preferred this application seeking regular bail.

The prosecution allegation is that on 05.08.2025 at 9.30 a.m., near Sardar Palli bus stop at Thiruvangad, while the defacto complainant was going to her workplace, the accused who came in a Scooter snatched away her imitation chain worth Rs.350/-. Moreover, during the incident, the defacto complainant fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the aforementioned offence.

Heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. According to the counsel, the petitioner was arrested in this case on 10.09.2025 and since then he has been under custody. It was urged that the investigation in this case is practically over and further judicial incarceration of the petitioner will serve no purpose and the same will tell much upon the family members of the petitioner who are solely depending on him for their livelihood.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by highlighting the criminal antecedents of the petitioner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is a history-sheeter registered with 16 criminal cases and if he is released on bail, there is a high propensity that he would involve in criminal activities again.

A perusal of the available records, it is gatherable that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie well founded. The allegation that the petitioner snatched away the imitation gold chain worn by the defacto complainant in board day light and in the incident, she sustained injuries cannot be viewed lightly. Anyhow, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused was arrested in this case on 10.09.2025 and since then he has been under judicial custody. The investigation in this case has crossed its major and crucial stage and is on the verge of completion. The imitation gold chain allegedly stolen by the petitioner has already been recovered. I am not unmindful of the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor sticking on the criminal antecedents of the petitioner. However, if at all the prosecution is having grievance regarding repetition of criminal activities by the petitioner, it is open for them to take actions against him under the preventive detention laws.

Hence, having regard to the dates of detention already undergone by the petitioner and the stage of investigation, I am inclined to grant bail to him on the following conditions:-

The petitioner shall be released on bail on 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 jurisdictional Court.

The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when he is required to do so in writing, apart from the days mentioned above, till the completion of the investigation.

The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the investigating officer.

The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

It is made clear that if any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.