Shaji.T vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the third accused in Crime No.218/2022 of Nattukal Police Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 379, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B, 408 & 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: the first accused was the President, the second accused was the Secretary and the third accused was the contractor of the Urban Credit Society, Alanallur(‘Society’ in short). During the period from 2005 to 09.07.2021, the accused in furtherance of their common intention, had fabricated a seal of the retired Assistant Engineer and used the same on the bills submitted to the society and misappropriated Rs.83,00,000/- from the society. The accused Nos.1 &2 had also stolen the articles of the society worth Rs.7,00,000/-. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. Vinod S. Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The offences alleged against the petitioner will not be attracted. In fact, the Court of Session had granted the petitioner an order of pre-arrest bail, by Annexure-A1 order. Subsequently, this Court by Annexure-A2 order, had cancelled Annexure-A order. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer had issued Section 41A notice and the petitioner co-operated with the Investigating Officer. It is after his interrogation was complete that he was arrested. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.02.2024. By Annexure-A5 order, the accused Nos.1

& 2 have been enlarged on bail. The allegation against the petitioner is much lesser than the accused Nos.1 & 2. The investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected. Moreover, a crime was registered at the instance of the person whose seal was allegedly forged. The petitioner was granted an order of pre-arrest bail by Annexure-A3 order by this Court in that crime. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the investigation in the case is still in progress and further recoveries have to be made. If the petitioner is let off on bail, it would certainly hamper with the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The principal allegation against the petitioner is that, he in furtherance of his common intention with the accused Nos.1 & 2, had fabricated bills and misappropriated Rs.83,00,000/- from the society.

Indisputably, the accused Nos. 1& 2 have been enlarged on bail by this Court as per Annexure-A5 order, after being in custody for nearly 30 days. The petitioner has also been in judicial custody since 07.02.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and the recoveries have been effected.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record and particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.02.2024 and the accused Nos.1 & 2 have been already released on bail, I am of the definite 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 one month 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.

(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].