Santhosh vs Sub Inspector Of Police

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 389 of 2016 of Kongadu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 IPC. The complaint was initiated by one Ramdas, who is the guarantor in respect of a vehicle purchased by the petitioner financed by Mahindra Finance, Palakkad Branch.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged and he is innocent of the allegations levelled against him.

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well. He has seriously opposed the application stating that the investigation is in the preliminary stage and they had to recover certain documents from the Maheendra and Maheendra Company and the alleged vehicle has also to be recovered. It is further submitted that if bail is granted to the petitioner, he will destroy the evidence or influence the witnesses.

Even though crime has been registered in the year 2016, the investigation has not so far been completed. Therefore, there is no meaning in detaining the accused in custody.

Under these circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail by invoking Section 438 of the Cr.P.C on the following conditions:

The petitioner herein shall surrender before the SHO, Kongadu Police Station, Palakkad on or before 26.03.2018 between 10 a.m and 11 a.m. and after interrogation, he 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 Investigating Officer.

The petitioner shall appear before the SHO, Kongadu Police Station at 9 a.m. on every alternate Saturdays for three months, commencing from 31.03.2018 or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or tamper any evidence in this case.

If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall stand cancelled, forthwith.

This application is allowed as above.