Ramesh H vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

This is the second application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the first accused in Crime No.34/2024 of Mannanthala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (four in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested on 16.01.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 04.11.2023, at 12 p.m. the first accused who was the former Branch Manager of the Catholic Syrian Bank, Nalanchira Branch took 1727.77 grams of gold ornaments having a value of Rs.96,23,678/- from the strong room of the bank and handed over the same to the second accused who in turn gave it to the third accused. Thereafter, the fourth accused replaced the stones and pearls of the said ornaments and melted the gold ornaments in his house. Subsequently, the gold was taken for testing its purity. Thereafter, the gold was sold to the Kerala Jewelery, East Fort, and the accused shared the profit between them. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi S., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. This is the second application filed by the petitioner to enlarge him on bail. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 16.01.2024, which is 77 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. The petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the investigation in the case is in progress. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 77 days and the other accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the accused Nos.2 to 4 have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 16.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further 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.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 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 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].