Muhammed Thanseel vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.1064/2023 of Valapattanam Police Station, Kannur, registered against the petitioner for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 379, 465, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. The petitioner was arrested on 28.11.2023.

The gist of the prosecution case, is that: On 01.11.2023, at about 11.00 p.m., the accused had dishonestly taken away a motor car bearing No. KL 13 AU 2121, owned by the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, he changed the chassis and engine number by replacing the same with the number of the vehicle bearing No.KL 45 W 7532 purchased by him. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. R.N.Sandeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Nima Jacob, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. He has been in judicial custody since 28.11.2023, which is more than 52 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is not complete. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 28.11.2023 and he has no other criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.11.2023, and the investigation in the case is practically complete, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s continuous detention is unnecessary. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh 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 alternate Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is filed, 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 of Delhi and Anr.[2020 (1) KHC 663].