Aromal Raj vs State Of Kerala

A.Badharudeen, J

The regular bail plea at the instance of the 5th accused in Crime No.87 of 2022 of Kaduthuruthi Police Station, Kottayam is the crux of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

I have perused the Case Diary materials produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

The prosecution case is that, the first accused obtained cars bearing Registration Nos.KL-67-C-3927 and KL-67-B-3927 owned and possessed by the defacto complainant on rent at the rate of Rs.800/- per day and thereafter, handed over the same to the second accused. The third and fourth accused, in turn, rented the cars to the fifth accused/the petitioner herein and the fifth and sixth accused jointly pledged the above cars for an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- to the seventh accused in Tamil Nadu. The specific allegation against the fifth accused is that, when the defacto complainant demanded back the cars, the fifth accused obtained Rs.1,10,000/- more through the account of the defacto complainant maintained at Federal Bank directly in his bank account and even after payment, the defacto complainant failed to return the cars, as offered. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code.

While canvassing regular bail to the petitioner, who has been in custody from 19.12.2022 onwards, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has no role in this occurrence. Highlighting his formal arrest as on 19.12.2022, when he has been in custody in connection with the other crime vide Crime No.1356 of 2022 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections under Sections 366, 323, 324, 354, 376(i), 506 r/w 34 of IPC where, he was arrested on 13.12.2022 and highlighting the progress of investigation along with the custody of the petitioner, as submitted, the learned counsel pursued the relief of regular bail.

Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed bail in this case. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the fifth and sixth accused are the persons who handed over the vehicle to the seventh accused, after availing Rs.2,30,000/- from the seventh accused. That apart the petitioner herein/5th accused had obtained Rs.1,10,000/- more from the defacto complainant on the assurance to return back the cars. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor highlighted that the petitioner is a person having involvement in multiple crimes. This is the fourth crime against him. Following are the crimes where, the petitioner's involvement is highlighted:

Cr.1131/22 u/s.509, 294(b), 506 IPC 120(O) of KP Act of Guryvayoor PS.

Cr.257/20 u/s.447, 341, 323, 294(b) IPC of Thrissur PS.

Cr.1356/22 u/s.366, 323, 324, 354, 376(i), 506, 34 IPC Kunnamkulam PS.

On perusal of the case diary, the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor appears to be convincing. It is relevant to note that the cars belonged to the defacto complainant referred herein above are yet to be recovered and the petitioner along with the third accused, who had pledged the same to the seventh accused, failed to locate the cars to facilitate the investigation. It is to be noted that the petitioner herein obtained Rs.1,10,000/-more from the defacto complainant with offer to return the cars and thereby also he had cheated the defacto complainant.

Viewing his criminal antecedents and his vital role in this crime, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be released at this stage where, the recovery of the cars yet to be made. Therefore, this petition deserves dismissal.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.