High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe bail applications are allowed; pre-arrest b...
Abdul Hameed Anakkaran Thayale Purayil v. State of Kerala
Case / Petition Number:Bail Appl. Nos. 8929/2023; 8973/2023; 8981/2023; 1672/2024; 1677/2024; 1681/2024; 1682/2024; 1683/2024; 1684/2024; 1685/2024
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C. S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2024-03-21
- Court Decision / Holding
- The common order allows the bail applications. The court held that custodial interrogation is not necessary and granted pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC on conditions including surrender within one week, production before the jurisdictional court upon arrest, furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and non-commission of any other offense. The order preserves the court’s ability to cancel bail if conditions are violated and notes that observations are strictly for deciding the application and do not reflect on merits.
- Final Disposition
- The bail applications are allowed; pre-arrest bail granted under Section 438 CrPC with specified conditions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Abdul Hameed Anakkaran Thayale Purayil
Respondents
- State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Abdul Raoof Pallipath
- • K. Ravinash (Kunnath)
- • E. Mohammed Shafi
- • Prajit Ratnakaran
Counsels for Respondents
- • C. S. Hrithwik
- • Neema T. V.
- • Seetha S.
- • Shynimol V. O.
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a consolidated pre-arrest bail judgment of the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) dated 21 March 2024, arising from a batch of bail applications under Section 438 CrPC filed by Abdul Hameed Anakkaran Thayale Purayil, the petitioner in multiple Chandera Police Station cases in Kasaragod (Crimes 957/2020, 610/2020, 577/2020, 1017/2020, 1023/2020, 1037/2020, 1041/2020, 1044/2020, 1050/2020 and 1065/2020). The petitioner, aged 64, is alleged as a director involved in inducement of defacto-complainants to invest in Fashion Gold International Pvt. Ltd., Nujoom Gold Pvt. Ltd., Qamar Fashion Gold Pvt. Ltd., and Fashion Ornaments Pvt. Ltd., with promises of dividends and return of capital, but with non-payment of dividends and non-repayment of investments. The offences include Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC, and provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (3 read with 21(1)-(3) and 5 read with 23), and Section 5 of the Kerala Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act. The court relies on Annexure A1 (common order in BA 8880/2023 dated 05.12.2023) granting pre-arrest bail in a batch of similar cases, finding custodial interrogation unnecessary. Consequently, the applications are allowed with standard conditions: surrender before the Investigating Officer within one week; production before the jurisdictional court on arrest; bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties; cooperation with investigation; no witness intimidation; no other offences; and potential cancellation of bail for violation. The order reinforces that observations are not merits and cites Sushila Aggarwal for bail-related guidance.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal CodeSection 3 read with Sections 21(1), 21(2), 21(3) and Section 5 read with Section 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019Section 5 of the Kerala Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Custodial interrogation is not necessary where pre-arrest bail is granted (as reflected in the common batch order).
- Cooperation with investigation as a condition of bail.
- Power to cancel bail for violation of conditions.
- Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (1) KHC 663 – authority cited for bail guidelines and admissibility of recoveries under bail]
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners’ counsel submitted that, in light of Annexure A1’s common order in B.A. No. 8880/2023 dated 05.12.2023, the petitioner is entitled to a similar pre-arrest bail benefit in these connected cases. They contended custodial interrogation is unnecessary and that the same petitioner faces multiple cases, with a consistent factual matrix, where the court has already granted pre-arrest bail in nearby matters. They emphasized that the right to bail under Section 438 CrPC should be protected unless there exists a strong, demonstrable reason to arrest, and that investigation can proceed without arrest while ensuring cooperation and compliance with the conditions. They urged the court to extend the same relief across the connected cases, given the uniformity of allegations and the prosecution’s readiness to proceed under supervision of the court.
Contentions of Respondents
The Respondents’ counsel acknowledged the court’s earlier grant of pre-arrest bail in a batch of cases (per Annexure A1) and supported a cautious approach, stating the offences involve serious charges under IPC and allied statutes. They argued for maintaining conditions and ensuring cooperation with the investigation, with a reasonable expectation of surrender and appearance as required. While acknowledging the gravity of the offences, they did not oppose the grant of pre-arrest bail in the present batch, provided the bail is subject to robust conditions, including compliance with production at arrest, no witness tampering, and avoidance of new offences, to ensure the integrity of the inquiry and possible recoveries under applicable statutory guidelines.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another | 2020 (1) KHC 663 | Positive | Cited as authority for bail conditions and the possibility of recoveries during bail; supports non-custodial investigation under monitored bail in a batch of cases |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Hameed Anakkaran Thayale Purayil v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946**
**BAIL APPL. NO. 8929 OF 2023**
**CRIME NO.957/2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
**ABDUL HAMEED ANAKKARAN THAYALE PURAYIL, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED MUKREENTAKAT, MADANI MANZIL, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE,KARIMBAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670142 BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI PRAJIT RATNAKARAN**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031**
**OTHER PRESENT:**
**SR PP SMT SEETHA S , SR PP SMT NEEMA T V , SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK . PP SMT SHYNIMOL V O**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..8973/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:2:-
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946**
## **BAIL APPL. NO. 8973 OF 2023**
**CRIME NO.610/2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
**ABDUL HAMEED ANAKKARAN THAYALE PURAYIL, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED MUKREENTAKAT, MADANI MANZIL, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE,KARIMBAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670142 BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI PRAJIT RATNAKARAN**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON**
**21.03.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..8929/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:3:-
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946**
**BAIL APPL. NO. 8981 OF 2023**
**CRIME NO.577/2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD**
**PETITIONER/S:**
**ABDUL HAMEED ANAKKARAN THAYALE PURAYIL AGED 64 YEARS**
**S/O. MUHAMMED MUKREENTAKAT, MADANI MANZIL, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE KARIMBAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670142**
**BY ADVS.**
**ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI**
**RESPONDENT/S:**
**STATE OF KERALA**
**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031**
**PP. SMT. SHYNIMOLE V.O.**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON**
**21.03.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..8929/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:4:-
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946**
**BAIL APPL. NO. 1672 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.1017/2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
**ABDUL HAMEED ANAKKARAN THAYALE PURAYIL, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED MUKREENTAKAT, MADANI MANZIL, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE,KARIMBAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670142 BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI PRAJIT RATNAKARAN**
## **RESPONDENT/STATE:**
**STATE OF KERALA,**
**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 SR. P.P. SMT. SEETHA S.**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON**
**21.03.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..8929/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:5:-
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946**
**BAIL APPL. NO. 1677 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.1023/2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
**ABDUL HAMEED ANAKKARAN THAYALE PURAYIL, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED MUKREENTAKAT, MADANI MANZIL, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE,KARIMBAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670142 BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI PRAJIT RATNAKARAN**
## **RESPONDENT/STATE:**
**STATE OF KERALA,**
**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 SR.P.P. SMT. NEEMA T.V.**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON**
**21.03.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..8929/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:6:-
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946**
**BAIL APPL. NO. 1681 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.1037/2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
**ABDUL HAMEED ANAKKARAN THAYALE PURAYIL, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED MUKREENTAKAT, MADANI MANZIL, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE,KARIMBAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670142 BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI PRAJIT RATNAKARAN**
## **RESPONDENT/STATE:**
**STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**PP SMT SHYNIMOL V O**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..8929/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:7:-
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946**
## **BAIL APPL. NO. 1682 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.1041/2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
**ABDUL HAMEED ANAKKARAN THAYALE PURAYIL, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED MUKREENTAKAT, MADANI MANZIL, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE,KARIMBAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670142 BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI PRAJIT RATNAKARAN**
## **RESPONDENT/STATE:**
**STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**SR PP SMT SEETHA S**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..8929/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:8:-
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946**
**BAIL APPL. NO. 1683 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.1044/2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
**ABDUL HAMEED ANAKKARAN THAYALE PURAYIL, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED MUKREENTAKAT, MADANI MANZIL, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, KARIMBAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670142 BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI PRAJIT RATNAKARAN**
## **RESPONDENT/STATE:**
**STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**SR PP SMT SEETHA**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON**
**21.03.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..8929/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:9:-
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946**
**BAIL APPL. NO. 1684 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.1050/2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
**ABDUL HAMEED ANAKKARAN THAYALE PURAYIL, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED MUKREENTAKAT, MADANI MANZIL, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE,KARIMBAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670142 BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI PRAJIT RATNAKARAN**
## **RESPONDENT/STATE:**
**STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**SR PP SMT SEETHA S**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..8929/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:10:-
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946**
## **BAIL APPL. NO. 1685 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.1065/2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
**ABDUL HAMEED ANAKKARAN THAYALE PURAYIL AGED 64 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED MUKREENTAKAT, MADANI MANZIL, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE,KARIMBAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670142 BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI PRAJIT RATNAKARAN**
## **RESPONDENT/STATE:**
**STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**SR PP SMT NEEMA T V**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..8929/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:11:-
## **COMMON ORDER**
**[Bail Appl. Nos.8929, 8973 & 8981 of 2023** & **1672, 1677, 1681, 1682, 1683, 1684 & 1685 of 2024]**
The applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(‘Code’, for short), for orders of pre-arrest bail.
2. In B.A.No.8929/2023 the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.957/2020, in B.A.No.8973/2023 the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.610/2020, in B.A.No.8981/2023 the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.577/2020, in B.A.No.1672/2024 the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1017/2020, in B.A.No.1677/2024 the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1023/2020, in B.A.No.1681/2024 the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1037/2020, in B.A.No.1682/2024 the petitioner is the accused in
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:12:-
Crime No.1041/2020, in B.A.No.1683/2024 the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1044/2020, in B.A.No.1684/2024 the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1050/2020 & in B.A.No.1685/2024 the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1065/2020, all of the Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code & Sections 3 r/w. 21(1), (2), (3) and S.5 r/w. 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act, for shot) & Section 5 of the Kerala Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act. As the petitioner is the same in all the above applications, the applications are consolidated, jointly heard and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The crux of the prosecution allegation in all the crimes is that, the accused, in furtherance of their
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:13:-
common intention, induced the defacto-complainants to invest money in four companies namely; Fashion Gold International Pvt. Ltd., Nujoom Gold Pvt. Ltd., Qamar Fashion Gold Pvt. Ltd., & Fashion Ornaments Pvt. Ltd, wherein the accused are directors. The accused promised the defacto-complainants dividends and also assured to return the capital. However, the accused failed to pay dividends or return the capital and caused unlawful loss to the defacto-complainants. Thus, they have committed the above offences.
4. Heard; Sri.Abdul Raooff Pallipath, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik and Smt.Neema T.V.., the learned Senior Public Prosecutors appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that by Annexure A1 common order in B.A.No.8880/2023 dated 05.12.2023, this Court has granted the petitioner orders of pre-arrest
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:14:-
bail. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of a similar order in these cases also. Hence, the applications may be allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutors conceded to the fact that this Court has in a batch of cases granted the petitioner orders of pre-arrest bail.
7. On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially taking into consideration the common order passed in B.A.No.8880/2023 & connected cases, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to the condition that the petitioners cooperate with the Investigating Officer.
In the result, the applications are allowed subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioners are directed to
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:15:-
surrender before the Investigating Officer within one week from today.
- ii) In the event of the petitioners’ arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce them before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself.
- iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioners on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;
- iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs;
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:16:-
- v) The petitioners shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner;
- vi) The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail.
- vii) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered
- to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.
- viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below.
- ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if
B.A.No.8929/2023 & connected cases
-:17:-
necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].**
x) Needless to say, any observations made in this order is only for the purpse of deciding the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by the Courts.
Sd/-
**C.S.DIAS**
**JUDGE**
**shg**