Shijith, vs State Of Kerala

This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in Crime No.2334 of 2017 of Vizhinjam Police Station, registered under Sections 406, 420, 465 and 471 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC.

The de facto complainant is running a rent a car business. He owns a Mahindra XUV 500 car bearing registration No. KL-14-P-2260 and also a BMW car bearing registration No. KL 32-D-1000. On 15.11.2017 at about 4.00 p.m., the petitioner herein along with the accused Nos.1 and 3 approached him and took the aforesaid vehicles on rent for a period of five days. The car was not returned within the agreed period. When he tried to contact the accused, the phone was switched off. Later, he received information that the BMW car belonging to him was sold by the petitioner and the accused Nos.1 and 3, after fabricating its Registration Book, to some person at Palakkad. On these allegations a complaint was furnished, based on which the crime was registered.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are untrue. It is true that the BMW car owned by the de facto complainant was taken on rent by the petitioner and a certain Kunjumon on 15.11.2017. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was transferred through bank. On 15.11.2017, as suggested by the de facto complainant, the car was handed over back to the aforesaid Kunjumon and Annexure-I agreement was executed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the transaction between the accused Nos.1 and 3 and the de facto complainant involving the Mahindra XUV car. The learned counsel also refers to Annexure-II as well as Annexure-III complaints filed the petitioner's mother before the Police authorities, wherein it is alleged that the implication of the petitioner is without basis.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through the case diary. It appears from the case diary that both the vehicles were seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 3. Though it is alleged in the FIS that the accused had managed to transfer the vehicles to strangers, it appears that no such transaction had taken place. The vehicles have already been seized and in that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessitous for an effective investigation.

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. The petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

i)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

ii)The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

iii)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

iv) If the petitioner intends to leave India, he shall obtain previous permission from the court having jurisdiction.

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.