Manikandan vs State

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.01.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.648 of 2022, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Kumaresan is that the accused, who was a tenant under the defacto complainant, befriended his daughter and induced her by stating that he got into a problem and had on various dates taken 41 sovereigns of jewels from her. When she asked for return of jewels, he stated that he has mortgaged the jewels and agreed to return the same. Later he did not return the jewels and cheated her. Hence the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are known to each other and due to financial dispute, a false complaint has been given against him. He would further submit that infact the petitioner has taken only 15 sovereigns of jewels and after the arrest of the petitioner, the respondent Police has recovered 15 sovereigns of jewels from him, whereas, a false and exaggerated complaint has been given, as if, the petitioner has taken 41 sovereigns of jewels from the daughter of the defacto complainant. He would also submit that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 29.01.2023 and hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) for the respondent would submit that the petitioner and the family members of the defacto complainant are known to each other and taking advantage of the friendship, the petitioner had taken 41 sovereigns of jewels from the daughter of the defacto complainant stating that he was in a trouble and later refused to return back the jewels. He would further submit that after the arrest of the petitioner, 15 sovereigns of jewels alone was recovered from him. He would also submit that the investigation is still pending. However, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) and perused the materials available on record.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by either side of the parties and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kallakurichi, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.