Shaffir P vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.252 of 2023 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station alleging offences under Sections 457, 461, 511 of 380 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The prosecution case is that, on 09.02.2023 at around mid night hours, petitioner along with the other accused had trespassed into the ATM cum Cash Deposit Machine of State Bank of India, Ernakulam South Branch and attempted to break open the machine by using a gas cutter, causing damage to the tune of Rs.1,88,883/-, and thereby committed the offences.

Sri.Ahamed Fazile C., learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent. It was further submitted that there is absolutely nothing on record to implicate the petitioner as an accused and that he has been falsely arrayed without any basis. It was further submitted that petitioner was arrested on 05.04.2023 and considering the period of detention already undergone, further detention ought not to be permitted.

Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail and submitted that petitioner has criminal antecedents of almost similar offence having been committed in the year 2018, and therefore, petitioner ought not to be released on bail. It was further submitted that the investigation has not yet been completed, and therefore, the application ought to be rejected.

I have considered the rival contentions.

Petitioner is alleged to have attempted to commit the offence under Section 380 of IPC, after breaking open ATM Machine and attempting to cut open the cash deposit machine by using a gas cutter. Though the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, considering the period of detention already undergone, I am of the view that further detention may amount to punishment before conviction. It is also relevant to record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner registered in the year 2018 was disposed of as per order in S.T.No.73/2019 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Malappuram; observing that the child has no disqualification.

Taking into reckoning the young age of the petitioner and the period of detention already undergone, I am of the view that petitioner ought to be set at liberty on the following conditions:

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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 court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave India until conclusion of trial.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.