Rahees Khan v. State of Kerala & Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2024-01-23
- Court Decision / Holding
- The application in B.A. No. 203/2024 is allowed. The petitioner Rahees Khan is directed to be released on bail on a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the same amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for two months or until the final report is filed; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport (or an affidavit in lieu, if none); (v) bail cancellation if conditions are violated; (vi) petitions for modification of conditions to be entertained; and (vii) IO may investigate and effect recoveries even while on bail, as laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. The order also cites Annexures and confirms the completion of investigation. Sd/ C.S. Dias, J.
- Final Disposition
- Bail granted; case disposed of, with the petition allowed and bail ordered under specific conditions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Rahees Khan
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
- Station House Officer, Alappuzha North Police Station, Alappuzha
- Thahir Aboobacker (Impleaded as Addl R3)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • D. Feroze
- • T. S. Krishnendu
- • Janet Varghese
- • Adarsh A.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt. Seetha S.
- • Smt. Vidya G Nair
Case Synopsis & Summary
Rahees Khan, the petitioner in Bail Application No. 203 of 2024, approached the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam seeking bail in Crime No. 1630/2023 of Alappuzha North Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. He was arrested on 19.12.2023. The prosecution’s concise case alleges that the petitioner collected Rs. 2,49,000 from the de facto complainant with a promise to secure admission for the complainant’s daughter in an institution, but failed to return the money or secure admission. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting false implication, and asserted that the dispute had been settled with the third respondent. An affidavit by the third respondent stated no objection to the petitioner’s release on bail. The Public Prosecutor corroborated the settlement’s genuineness, noting the repayment arrangement within two months after release, and the third respondent supported these submissions. The Court found the investigation to be complete and that the petitioner had already remained in judicial custody since 19.12.2023; further detention was deemed unnecessary. After evaluating the materials, the Court granted bail subject to stringent conditions, including a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of equal amount, quarterly/weekly appearances before the Investigating Officer for two months, prohibitions on inducement or tampering with witnesses, non-commission of any offence while on bail, surrender of any passport, and contingencies for cancellation or modification of conditions. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. to justify the IO’s power to investigate and recover even during bail. The judge, C.S. Dias, allowed the application. Sd/ (C.S. Dias, J.).
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contended that he is innocent of the charges and has been falsely implicated. A settlement has been arrived at with the third respondent, who has filed an affidavit indicating no objection to the petitioner’s release on bail. The petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and adhere to stringent conditions that the Court may impose.
Contentions of Respondents
The settlement between the petitioner and the third respondent is genuine and bona fide. It is agreed that the petitioner will repay the amount within two months of release. The affidavit of the third respondent is genuine. The Public Prosecutor supported the settlement, and the third respondent’s counsel endorsed it.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sushila Aggarwal v. State(NCT of Delhi) and Anr. | 2020 (1) KHC 663 | Positive | Used as authority for allowing continued investigation and recoveries by the Investigating Officer even when the accused is on bail. |
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 Rahees Khan v. State of Kerala & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.