Shaindas @ Shainudas vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the second accused in crime No.1048/2023 of the Mankara Police Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 25(1B) (a) of the Arms Act. The petitioner’s arrest was recorded on 03.01.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 06.12.2023 at about 15.50 hours, the Investigating Officer recovered a pistol gun and a magazine from the house of the first accused. During the course of the interrogation, the first accused confessed that he brought the gun from Visakhapatanam for the second accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.V.A. Johnson, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Shiny. V.O, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner has any involvement in the crime. It is only on the basis of the confession statement made by the first accused that the petitioner has been arraigned as the second accused. The petitioner’s formal arrest was recorded in the present case on 03.01.2024. The petitioner was actually arrested on 30.11.2023 in Crime No.1034/2023 of the very same police station. The investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. The petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. The petitioner is involved in other crimes at the very same police station. The investigation in the case is in progress. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, it is seen that the petitioner has been arraigned as the second accused in the crime based on the confession made by the first accused that he brought the pistol with the magazine from Visakhapatanam for the second accused/the petitioner. Indisputably, the petitioner’s arrest was recorded in the present crime on 03.01.2024, which is more than a month. The investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected.

On an anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the fact that the investigation in the case is practically complete and the 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.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 for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, 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.

(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(viii) 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].