IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1995 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.3149/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NEDUMKANDOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- NIZAR @ PONNU, S/O.HASSAN, UKKINAVATTIL HOUSE, EDAVETTY BHAGOM, THODUPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROFESSOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME 257/2007 OF NEDUMKANDOM POLICE STATION) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1995 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26 th day of June, 2008 ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.257 of 2007 of Nedumkandam Police Station, initially registered for offences punishable under Section 408,420 and 381 IPC. Subsequently the offence under Section 381 IPC was deleted but was later re- incorporated. The petitioner challenges the order dated 16.6.08 passed by the J.F.C.M, Nedumkandam cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, who was an employee of KTC Communications, Nedumkandam run by the de facto complainant, while working as such cheated the de facto complainant and obtained unlawful gain to the tune of Rs.3,04,956/- and also committed theft of a computer and its accessories altogether worth Rs.17,000/- from KTC Communications. 4. The investigation in this case was subsequently Crl.R.P.No.1995 of 2008 2 entrusted with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kattappana pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.C No.33644 of 2007 at the instance of the de facto complainant. In the meanwhile the accused surrendered before the learned Magistrate on 25.8.07 and was released on bail by J.F.C.M, Kattappana, subject to certain conditions, one of which was that he shall report before the Investigating Officer on all Sundays . Subsequently, that condition was lifted on 6.2.08. By that time the offence punishable under Section 381 IPC which had been deleted from the case was re-incorporated. After the investigation was entrusted with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kattappana, it was noticed that there was no attempt at all made to recover the computer and its accessories allegedly stolen by the petitioner. However, on the petition filed by the learned APP in charge of the case as CMP No.3149 of 2008, the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail under Section 437(5) Cr.P.C, without recording any finding that the petitioner had violated any of the conditions of the order granting him bail. It is the said order which is assailed in this Revision. 5. In as much as there is no case for the Investigating Crl.R.P.No.1995 of 2008 3 Officer nor any finding by the court below that the petitioner had violated the conditions of bail or had mis-used the liberty granted to him by the court, the magistrate was not justified in cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner. But at the same time, no investigation worth its name appears to have been conducted with regard to the missing computer and its accessories. The fact that this Court had changed the Investigating Officer will indicate that the investigation until then was not proceeding on proper lines. Now that the investigation has been entrusted with a senior Police Officer it is only proper that he is not deprived of a chance to conduct an investigation with regard to the missing of the computer and its accessories for which police custody of the petitioner is inevitable. The petitioner was never given custody to the Police, since he had avoided the same by surrendering before the learned Magistrate and getting himself released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to appear before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of custodial interrogation on any day during day time. 6. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set Crl.R.P.No.1995 of 2008 4 aside and the order releasing the petitioner on bail is revived with the following conditions:- 1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Sundays at 11 a.m. 2) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as when required by the Investigating Officer. 3) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 4. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 26 th day of June, 2008. sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj /True Copy/ P.A To Judge