Rahees Khan 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 in Crime No.1630/2023 of Alappuzha North Police Station, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2023.

The concise case of the prosecution, is that: the accused had collected Rs.2,49,000/- from the de-facto complainant, promising that he would secure an admission for his daughter in an institution. However, he failed to secure the admission or return the amount received. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard;  Sri.  D.Feroze,  the  learned  counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Smt.Vidya G Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the additional third respondent/ de-facto complainant/ intervenor.

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. Notwithstanding the above crime, the petitioner has settled the dispute with the third respondent. The parties have entered into a compromise and the third respondent has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that he has no objection in the petitioner being released on bail. The petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, ascertained and submitted that the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the third respondent is genuine and bona-fide. It is agreed between the parties that the petitioner would return the amount received from the third respondent within a period of two months after his release from custody. It is also submitted that the affidavit filed by the third respondent is executed by the third respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent also endorsed the above submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor .

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of Annexure-R3(A) affidavit filed by the third respondent, that the investigation in the case is complete, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 19.12.2023 and his further detention is unnecessary, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, subject to stringent conditions.

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 Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months 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(NCT of Delhi) and Anr. [2020 (1) KHC 663].