IMPORTANT POINT
Custodial interrogation is essential for recovering stolen property, and bail applications are dismissed when allegations lack merit.

ORDER :

These three Bail Applications filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected, and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order.

2. Petitioners in B. A No.7812/2024 and 7808/2024 are accused in Crime No.1228/2024 of Kondotty Police Station, Kozhikode. Petitioners in B. A No.9544/2024 are accused in Crime No.806/2024 of Feroke Police Station, Kozhikode.

3. Crime No.1228/2024 is registered by the Kondotty Police based on a complaint filed by the additional 2^nd respondent herein. The case of the complainant is that the petitioners, between 9 p.m on 30.08.2024 and 1 p.m. on 01.09.2024, stole 189 mobile phones of various brands valued at approximately Rs.49,35,189/- along with Rs.50,400/- in cash from a mobile and accessory shop owned by M/s. ASHTEL RETAIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED where the additional 2^nd respondent is the Director. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offences under Section 306 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short ’BNS’).

4. Crime No.806/2024 is registered by the Feroke Police alleging offences punishable under Section 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS. This case was registered based on the complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent, who is the Director of M/s. ASHTEL RETAIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. The allegation is that the mobile phones and accessories worth Rs. 41,85,960/- and cash of Rs. 16,030/- were stolen from their shop. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. The petitioners apprehend arrest in both these cases. Hence, these bail applications.

5. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

6. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that all the allegations against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel submitted that it is a false case foisted against the petitioners. It is also submitted that an agreement has been executed between M/s. ASHTEL RETAIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED and the petitioner in B.A No.7808/2024. It is submitted that Annexure A2 agreement in B.A No.7808/2024 was cancelled and a new agreement was drawn, wherein, the petitioner in B.A No.7808/2024 retired from the partnership. It is submitted that he seems to be a partner from 27.08.2024. It is submitted that there was a dispute between the Franchisor, the petitioners and the complainant about the running of the shop and the division of profit. It is the definite case of the petitioner that on 02.09.2024, several persons led by the service department head of the company, broke open the lock of the shutter by using gas cutters and entered the shop. This was done in the absence of the franchisee at that time. It is also the case of the petitioners that they removed all items kept at the shop and packed up.

7. It is alleged that the petitioners have not committed any offence.

8. The defacto complainant filed a detailed objection.The defacto complainant produced Annexures R2(a) to R2(k) along with the objection. It is submitted by the 2^nd respondent that the petitioners committed theft, of all the mobile phones and other accessories from the shop. It is also submitted that the 2^nd respondent with the consent of the Police broke open the two shops and it was found that all the mobile phones were removed by the petitioners. It is also submitted that the removed mobile phones were already sold and activated subsequently. That shows that the petitioners committed the offence. The counsel submitted that the petitioners may not be released on bail. The Public Prosecutor also seriously opposed the bail application and submitted that the mobile phones are to be recovered for which custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary.

9. Since the dispute is regarding the missing of mobile phones from the shop, this Court directed the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer was allowed to interrogate the petitioners. The Investigating Officers were directed to report whether cu