Vimal @ Roshan vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

These applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail.

The petitioners in all the cases are one and the same. He is the second accused in crime Nos. 1834/2023, 1795/2023, 1808/2023, 1788/2023, 1766/2023, 1751/2023, 1787/2023, 1880/2023, 1739/2023, 1809/2023, 1796/2023, 1873/2023, 1884/2023, 1937/2023, 1930/2023, 1935/2023, 1957/2023, 1654/2023 and 1522/2023 registered by Palarivattom police station, Ernakulam, alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In B.A.No.7900/2023, crime No.1242/2023 is registered against him by the Palarivattom police station under Section 468 of IPC in addition to the aforesaid offences.

The prosecution allegation is that accused No.1, who is the proprietor of AB Cars, with an intention to take over a car bearing registration No.KL-59-N-3787 (Maruthi Swift Dzire) owned by the de facto complainant, making the de facto complainant believe that said vehicle can be sold for Rs.5 lakh, entered into a sale agreement with the de facto complainant who handed over the vehicle to the first accused with receiving any advance amount. The first accused had promised the de facto complainant that he would pay the entire amount after selling the car. Thereafter the vehicle was transferred by the first accused in the name of a stranger for an amount of Rs.4,90,000/- by making forged documents without any knowledge or information of the de facto complainant and thereby committed the alleged offences.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only a staff attached to the first accused’s car showroom, namely AB Cars, Palarivattom and that he had not been involved in the business of the first accused. The petitioner being an employee cannot be implicated. He has been in judicial custody since 18.8.2023 and therefore, seeks bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications contending that the petitioner is a regular offender along with the first accused and has several criminal antecedents. He states that crime Nos.1242/2023, 1522/2023, 1643/2023, 1654/2023, 1739/2023, 1751/2023, 1766/2023, 1787/2023, 1788/2023, 1795/2023, 1809/2023, 1796/2023, 1808/2023, 1894/2023, 1816/2023, 1818/2023, 1834/2023, 1873/2023, 1880/2023, 1884/2023 were registered by Palarivattom police station against the first accused, and the second accused (petitioner herein) and the third accused in all the cases except in crime Nos. 1643/2023, 1816/2023, 1818/2023 and 1894/2023 of Palarivattom police station and crime No.1713/2023 of Ernakulam Town South police station. In one of the cases on hand (BA 7900/2023), there are allegations of forgery against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, he opposed granting bail stating that the investigation is not over because of the number of crimes.

Though the allegations against the petitioner are serious, considering the fact that he was only an employee under the first accused and his acts were primarily for the benefit of the first accused, taking into account the period of detention already undergone, no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if enlarged on bail he is likely to abscond, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in all the above cases, on the following conditions:-

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on 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 jurisdictional court;

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter as and when directed to appear.

iii.He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he tamper with the evidence or do anything that might adversely affect the trial;

iv.He shall not commit any offence while on bail;

v. He shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction;

vi.He shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional Court and, if he has a passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week. If the release of the passport is required at a later period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move appropriate applications for the same before the Court having jurisdiction.

vii.He shall furnish his present address along with his mobile phone number to the Court concerned as well as to the investigating officer. viii.In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

It is made clear that it is within the power of police to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner, even when the petitioner is on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State ( NCT of Delhi) and another [2021 (1) KHC 663].