Moideenkutty P vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

The Petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 179/2023 of Cherpulassery Police Station, Palakkad District registered for the offences punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal code. They are arrayed as accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10 respectively in the above crime.

The prosecution case is stated as follows: On. 06.04.2023, at about 12.30 p.m, the accused, four in number, intercepted the defacto complainant who was travelling in a motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL-51-J31 using two bikes and committed robbery of his two mobile phones and his bike and thereby alleged to have committed the offences.

The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.S.Rajeev argues that there were only four persons mentioned in the FIR and it was subsequently that the petitioners were implicated. It is also pointed out that the first petitioner is a Councillor of Cherpulassery Municipality and that on the basis of calls he received, he cannot be implicated and thus prayed for anticipatory bail.

The learned Prosecutor opposing the application submits that it was from the CCTV visuals and on the basis of the tower locations the presence of the petitioners were noticed. He also submitted that the phones which were the subject matter of the crime were destroyed following which Section 201 IPC was also added.

After considering the rival submissions, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to all the petitioners.

On account of the accusations, noted above, against petitioners 2 and 3, rejecting their request for anticipatory bail, there will be a direction to them to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and they shall be interrogated and thereafter, shall be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction on the date of surrender itself. If the petitioners move for bail, the court below shall, untrammelled by any of the observations in this order, consider the bail application on merits as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioners do not surrender before the Investigating Officer, as directed above, the Investigating Officer will be free to arrest the petitioners 2 and 3 as if no order has been passed in this case.

As regards the first petitioner/8th accused, considering the fact that he is a Councillor of a Municipality, and also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that being a Councillor he will get frequent calls and also have to go to various places as part of his position, I am inclined grant anticipatory bail to him alone, on the following conditions:-

i. The petitioner/8th accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and subject himself to interrogation.

ii. After interrogation, in the event of the Investigating Officer deciding to arrest him, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.

iii.He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when directed.

iv. He shall also co-operate with the investigation and shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer.

v. He shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional court.

vi. He shall not commit any offence while on bail.

vii.He shall appear before the Investigating Officer every Monday till the final report is filed.

viii.If any of the above conditions are violated by him, the jurisdictional court is empowered to cancel the bail 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 him, even when he 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].