High CourtsSingle Bench

Thouseef T vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 5 February 2024 · Citation: (2024) 02 KL CK 0035

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sophy Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 380, 420, 506
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 10775 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 493 words

Sophy Thomas, J

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the first accused in Crime No.821 of 2023 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod, registered under Sections 420, 380, 506, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

The prosecution allegation is that, on 12.02.2023, the first and second accused committed theft of a Fortuner Car bearing Reg. No.KL 60 Q 4499, which belonged to the deceased husband of the defacto complainant, and they sold away that vehicle causing loss of Rs.30,50,000/- to the defacto complainant.

3.

Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner, learned counsel for the additional second respondent/defacto complainant, and learned Public Prosecutor.

4.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, soon after the death of the husband, the defacto complainant filed a complaint against her in-laws, and Crime No.140 of 2022 was registered against them. In that complaint, nothing was mentioned about the theft of KL 60 Q 4499 Fortuner Car, which was allegedly kept in her car porch. Only after two years of death of her husband, she preferred this complaint, and Crime No.821 of 2023 was registered against the petitioner. He never committed any theft as alleged, and he is not aware of the sale of that car.

6.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that investigation is going on, and the vehicle KL 60 Q 4499 is seized by the police. The role of the petitioner herein is under investigation, and so, the petitioner has to appear before the Investigating Officer to co-operate with the investigation.

7.

There was interim order not to arrest the petitioner and it was extended till today. Considering the nature of allegations, and the stage of investigation, this Court is inclined to allow this application on the following terms;

(i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 13.02.2024, and subject himself for interrogation.

(ii) In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when directed.

(iv) The petitioner shall not cause any kind of harassment to the defacto complainant, either directly or indirectly.

(v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer at the time of executing the bond, and if he is not having a passport, he has to file an affidavit to that effect before him.

(vi) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of India, without getting prior permission from the jurisdictional court.

(vii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(viii) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the investigating officer can approach the jurisdictional Magistrate to get his bail cancelled, in accordance with law.