Shamnad K.P. vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 4th accused in Crime No.1187/2023 of the Tirur Police Station, Malappuram, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sec.379 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: between 26.06.2023 and 27.06.2023, the accused 1 to 3 had stolen a vehicle bearing No.KL-71-E/5257 and had handed over the same to the 4th accused, who knowing that the property was stolen, purchased it from the accused 1 to 3. The accused caused a loss of Rs.1,10,000/-to the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence.

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

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the only overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he received the stolen property knowing that it was stolen. The petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations leveled against him. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.02.2024, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. The petitioner is involved in two crimes, one is of the similar nature and another for allegedly committing the offence under the NDPS Act. If the petitioner is released on bail, he would certainly tamper with the evidence. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the investigation is complete and the final report has been laid and the case has been numbered as C.C.No.890/2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur.

On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he knowingly received the stolen property from the accused 1 to 3. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.02.2024, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid.

In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct.

In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner.

In State of Kerala v. Raneef, [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without  any  sufficient  reason  or  due  to  the  delay  in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.02.2024, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid, 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 as and when directed;

(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 another [2020 (1) KHC 663].