Kerala High Court
Hiloor Mohammed vs State Of Kerala on 3 May, 2016
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2016/13TH VAISAKHA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 3261 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 560/2016 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
...........
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
----------------------
HILOOR MOHAMMED, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O SAINUDHEEN,KUNNUMPURAM VEEDU,
ATTINPURAM, PANAVOOR, NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------
1.STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VINAYAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
P.UBAID, J.
============================
B.A.No.3261 of 2016
============================
Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2016
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.560 of 2016 of the Nedumangad Police Station registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application filed by him for regular bail was dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad on 12.04.2016. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.03.2016.
2. The prosecution case is that on 30.07.2010 the petitioner obtained some gold ornaments from the defacto complainant for pledging, making the complainant believe that the ornaments will be returned without any delay, but later he dishonestly misappropriated the ornaments. It is submitted that the investigation is practically over, and that B.A.No.3261 of 2016 2 the petitioner has already obtained bail in some other cases of identical nature.
3. This application for regular bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, it will definitely obstruct the investigation.
4. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary and the police report, I find that investigation in this case is practically over and that the petitioner can be now released on appropriate conditions. I find that the Investigating Officer has already questioned the material witnesses. The police has already collected the necessary materials for a prosecution, and I do not find the necessity of continued detention of the petitioner in custody. However, the petitioner will have to be directed to report before the Investigating Officer periodically, to ensure that the remaining part of investigation is not in any manner obstructed. Some other reasonable conditions are also felt necessary in the particular B.A.No.3261 of 2016 3 facts and circumstances.
In the result, this application for bail is allowed. The petitioner will be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad. Bail is granted on condition that;
a. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 am to 11 a.m on every Saturday for a period of two months.
b. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of Nedumangad Police Station for two months.
c. The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the witnesses and he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.
d. The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the learned Magistrate within a week from the date of release.
B.A.No.3261 of 2016 4
e. The petitioner shall make a security deposit of 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in the court below as a further condition for bail. The amount of security deposit will be released on conclusion of trial. It will be subject to forfeiture in case of absence during trial without sufficient reason.
Sd/-
P.UBAID JUDGE rkj //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE