Muhammad Rashid v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.4/2024 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, Thrissur PETITIONER/S:** **MUHAMMAD RASHID, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMAD MUSTHAFA VALIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, VALAPARAMBU DESOM, ERUMBUZHY, ERANAD MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673633** **BY ADV P.T.SHEEJISH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2024 2 Dated this the 22[nd] day of May, 2024 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.04/2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thrissur Rural registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner was arrested on 21.03.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: the accused, to make unlawful gain, made the defacto complainant believe that he would give him huge profit, if he made deposits with him. On believing the words of the accused, the defacto complainant deposited an amount of Rs.11,80,933/-. However, the accused did not pay any profit or return the capital. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2024 3 3. Heard; Sri.P.T.Sheejish, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the case. Moreover, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 61 days, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been laid. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the statutory benefit of the proviso to sub section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that there are incriminating materials to show the petitioner's involvement in the BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2024 4 case. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that all the offences registered against the petitioner are punishable for a period of less than ten years and that the investigation in the case is not complete and the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 61 days. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he had deceived the defacto complainant by assuring him profits and received an amount of Rs.11,80,933/-. However, he did not pay the defacto complainant any profit or return the capital. 7. Indisputably, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.03.2024. All the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable for a period of less BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2024 5 than ten years. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not laid the final report till date. ## 8. Subsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:- “167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.—(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that— 2 [(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding— BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2024 6 (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;] [(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage;] (c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. [Explanation I.—For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.] [Explanation II.—If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under clause (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be.] [Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognised social institution.]” BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2024 7 9. Interpreting sub-section (ii) of Section 167 of the Code, the Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Sanjay Dutt v.State through C.B.I., Bombay** [(1994) 5 SCC 410] has observed as follows:- "53.(2)(b) The "indefeasible right" of the accused to be released on bail in accordance with Section 20(4)(bb) of the TADA Act read with Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in default of completion of the investigation and filing of the challan within the time allowed, as held in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur is a right which enures to, and is enforceable by the accused only from the time of default till the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed. If the accused applies for bail under this provision on expiry of the period of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, then he has to be released on bail forthwith. The accused, so released on bail may be arrested and committed to custody according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The right of the accused to be released on bail after filing of the challan, notwithstanding the default in filing it within the time allowed, is governed from the time of filing of the challan only by the provisions relating to the grant of bail applicable at that stage." 10. A three-Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra** [(2001) 5 SCC 453], reiterated the legal proposition in **Sanjay Dutt v.State through C.B.I., Bombay** (supra). In paragraph 13 (3) it was opined thus: BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2024 8 "13. x x x x x x (3) On the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail as directed by the Magistrate.” (emphasis added) 11. In the instant case, as the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.03.2024, all the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable for a period of less than ten years, and the Investigating Officer has not laid the final report till date, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail, since it is his indefeasible right under Section 167(2) of the Code. Hence, I allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2024 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** - (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; - (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; - (iv) 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. BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2024 10 - (v) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below. - (vi) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is 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]. sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rkc/22.05.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2024 11 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3825/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1** **THE CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO: 04/2024 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THRISSUR RURAL, IRINJALAKUDA** **Annexure A2** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC NO. 549/2024 DATED 30.04.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR**