Rashidh N.K. vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.223 of 2023 of Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

According to the prosecution, on 30.03.2023 at about 10.20 P.M the accused Nos.1 to 4 restrained the defacto complainant and after criminally intimidating him robbed him of a Swift Car bearing registration No. KL-56/N-4165, after using force and thereby committed the offences under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Sri. R.Sudhish, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that the petitioners had merely demanded the amounts due to them and thereafter a false complaint has been registered. The learned counsel further asserted that the very fact that the vehicle has not been able to be recovered till date itself indicates that the complaint filed is false and intended only to avoid repayment of the amount due to the petitioners. In any event, it was submitted that the 1st petitioner was arrested 14.4.2023 and the 2nd petitioner was arrested on 04.04.2023, having regard to the period of detention already undergone, the further detention ought not to be permitted.

Smt.T.V Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are serious and that the investigation is still ongoing. It was also submitted that the remaining accused had not yet been apprehended and that the vehicle involved in the crime has also not been recovered. Taking into consideration, the said circumstances, the application ought to be rejected.

I have considered the rival contentions.

Even though the incident is alleged to have occurred on 30.03.2023, the FIR was filed only on 02.04.2023. No serious injury is alleged to have been inflicted, even going by the prosecution case. Further, the parties are alleged to have known each other earlier and is also alleged to have entered into a private agreement between them which is produced as Annexure A1. Even though the veracity of Annexure A1 agreement cannot be gone into at this juncture, having regard to the young age of the petitioners, and also taking into reckoning the period of detention already undergone, as well as the nature of the allegations, I am of the view that, detention need not be countinued. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners have also been completed.

In view of the above, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioners shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioners shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.

(e) Petitioners shall not leave India until conclusion of trial.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.