Rahul Nair vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 1st accused in Crime No.1607/2023 of the Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode, which is registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that; in August 2022, the accused had induced the de facto complainant by falsely promising that they would arrange a seat for his daughter for medical education and they received Rs.45,90,000/- from him, in instalments. However, the accused did not secure the admission or return the amount. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.P A.Mujeeb, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor and Smt.Sreelakshmi P , the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant/additional 2nd respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. In any given case, the subject matter in dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent has been amicably settled out of the court as per Annexure A2 agreement executed by the parties. The petitioner has agreed to return the money to the 2nd respondent as per the terms of Annexure A2 agreement. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 20 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. Nonetheless, she stated that the Investigating Officer has ascertained and reported that a genuine settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.

The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  2nd respondent also stated that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent has been amicably settled as per Annexure A2 agreement. She vouched for the signature of the 2nd respondent in Annexure A2 agreement and the contents in Annexure A2 agreement.

On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 20 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, and further that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent has been amicably settled as per the conditions in Annexure A2 agreement, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the 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 Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. 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 filed and entertained before 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 another [2020 (1) KHC 663].