Ratheeshan K vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( ‘the BNSS’ for short) 2023, by the first accused in Crime No. 158/2024 of the Adhur Police Station, Kasargod, which is registered against accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B, 465, 468, 477A and 380 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 7.6.2024.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that: the first accused, while working as Secretary of the Karadukka Agriculturist Welfare Co-operative Society (‘Society’ for short), had forged documents to show that 32 gold loans were sanctioned to several persons without pledging any gold and obtained loan for Rs.1,66,69,900/-. Thereafter, he misappropriated gold ornaments from 42 gold loan packets worth Rs.1,22,80,007/- and pledged the same in other banks with the assistance of accused 2 to 4. Accordingly, the accused misappropriated a total amount of Rs.4,75,99,907/- and amount was entrusted to the fifth accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offences. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 94 days, the investigation in the case is not complete and final report has not been laid. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that the petitioner has committed a grave economic offence by misappropriating Rs.4,75,99,907/- . If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution case is that while the petitioner was working as Secretary of the Society, he misappropriated money and gold from the society. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 94 days, the investigation in the case is not complete and final report has not been laid.

Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:-

Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.—(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

Provided that— 2 [(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding—

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;]

A three-Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 5 SCC 453], reiterated the legal proposition in Sanjay  Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay . In paragraph 13 (3) it was opined thus:

"13. x x x x x x (3) On the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail as directed by the Magistrate.”

(emphasis added)

In the instant case, as the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 94 days, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been laid, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on statutory bail since it is his indefeasible right under Section 167(2) of the Code. Hence, I 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 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 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 Another [2020 (1) KHC 663].