Shyam Kumar C.R vs State Of Kerala

C.S. Sudha, J.

This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners/accused in Crime no.711/2021 of Koratty Police Station,

alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.

The prosecution case is that the accused - two in number, on 14.08.2021 at 1.20 a.m. committed robbery by forcibly taking away 65 buffalo calves

owned by the informant, that were being transported in a lorry bearing registration No.TN-41 AV-2322. Lal Krishna, the agent of the informant, who

was in the lorry accompanying the cattle was threatened and compelled to handover the cattle to the accused, who then forcibly took him away in

their car. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under the above mentioned Section.

The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the investigation is at its initial stage and that in case the

petitioners/A1 and A2 are granted bail, there is every possibility of the petitioners/ A1 and A2 absconding, thus hampering the investigation. It is also

submitted that the investigation has revealed the involvement of other persons also.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2 that the petitioners are innocent of the offence alleged against them. The

prosecution case that the petitioners robbed the cattle is incorrect and false. Lal Krishna, the additional 2nd respondent, the person who was

transporting the cattle in the lorry owed money to them and hence for clearing the liability, the cattle was voluntarily handed over by the former to the

petitioners. Thereafter under the influence of the additional 3rd respondent he gave a false complaint to the police alleging that he was kidnapped by

the petitioners and forced to hand over the cattle to them.

Heard the learned counsel for the additional 3rd respondent also, who submitted that the cattle actually belongs to him and that it is the additional

3rd respondent who has actually suffered loss in this case.

Heard both sides. Perused the records.

The main issue in this case is relating to the ownership of cattle that was being transported and which is alleged to have been forcibly taken away

by the petitioners/ A1 and A2 herein. Rival claims are made by the petitioners and additional respondents 2 and 3. The petitioners herein contend that

it is to clear off the liability that Additional 2nd respondent owed to them, the latter had voluntarily handed over the cattle to them. On the other hand,

the additional 3rd respondent contends that additional 2nd respondent had no authority to hand over the cattle to the petitioners as it is he who is

actually the owner of the cattle. The fact that cattle was taken possession from the additional 2nd respondent by the petitioners is not disputed. The

question whether it was in the manner as alleged by the prosecution requires evidence.

From the facts and circumstances of the case custodial interrogation of the petitioners/ A1 and A2 does not appear necessary. Hence, pre-arrest

bail can be granted on stringent conditions.

In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions :

(i) The petitioners in the event of their arrest in the aforesaid crime shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-each (Rupees fifty

thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. till the filing of the final

report. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the latter.

(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and they shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses in any manner or interfere with the investigation.

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offences while on bail.

Needless to say, in the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer will be at liberty to move the jurisdictional Magistrate

for cancellation of the bail.