Prince vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused accused in Crime No.17/2024 of Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 & 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short, ‘IPC’). The petitioner was arrested on 09.01.2024.

The essence of the prosecution, is that: on 04.01.2024, at around 10.30 a.m., the accused Nos.1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention to commit robbery, telephoned the de-facto complainant and requested him to come to Kothar KLDC Canal Bund. When he reached there, the accused intercepted his vehicle and the second accused forcefully hit him on his chin, took away his ATM card and withdrew an amount of Rs.30,000/-. The accused also robbed Saudi Riyals equivalent to Rs.3,000/- from the purse of de-facto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. Leo Lukose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. Even going by the allegations in Annexure-A1 First Information Report[FIR], it can be gathered that, it was the second accused who intercepted the vehicle, assaulted the de-facto complainant and took away his ATM card and withdrew money from the ATM machine. At any rate, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28 days. There is no recovery to be effected. The petitioner has no  criminal antecedents. Therefore,  the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. she contended that the petitioner and the accused Nos.2 & 3 had jointly committed the crime, that is why Section 34 has been incorporated. Moreover, the investigation is still in progress. If the petitioner is let off on bail, it would certainly hamper with the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution allegation as per Annexure-A1 FIR is that, it was the second accused who telephoned the de-facto complainant and asked him to reach the place at Kothar KLDC Canal Bund and, thereafter, the second accused intercepted the vehicle, punched the de-facto complainant on his chin, forcefully took away his ATM card and withdrew the money. There is a further allegation that the accused then robbed a Saudi Riyal from the purse of the de-facto complainant.

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 09.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected, and further that the petitioner is a person without any criminal antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s continuous 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 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 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 them 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 Anr.[2020 (1) KHC 663].