Mathew C.M. vs. State Of Kerala - Kerala High Court, 15 March 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939 Bail Appl..No. 9017 of 2017 CRIME NO.1897/2017 OF THEVARA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PETITIONER: MATHEW C.M., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O MATHAI, CHAKKUNGAL HOUSE, MAMALA P.O, THIRUVAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THEVARA POLICE STATION (INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NUMBER OF THEVARA POLICE STATION) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PBS 16/3/2018 R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J ---------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.9017 of 2017 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2018

ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No.189/2017 of Town South police station, Ernakulam under Section 420 I.P.C.

The prosecution case is that the accused purchased 25.15 metric ton steel by using the GST number and invoice of the company by name Archieves Construction Private Ltd. owned by the de facto complainant. The accused did not deliver the steel to the de facto complainant, but he sold it to other persons and caused a loss of Rs.11,86,448/- to the de facto complainant and thereby he cheated him.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

The alleged transaction between the petitioner and the de facto complainant occurred during their business transactions with each other. The allegation against the petitioner is only that the steel purchased by him using the GST number and invoice of the de facto complainant was sold by him to other persons. Considering the nature of the allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation. The report of the investigating officer does not reveal that the petitioner has got any criminal antecedents. The prosecution has also no case that on getting bail, the petitioner would abscond and flee from justice. In these circumstances, I find that the discretion of the court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner to grant him pre-arrest bail. In the result, the petition is allowed and it is ordered as follows: 1) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of his arrest by the police in Crime No. 1897 of 2017 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station. 2) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer between 9 a.m and 11 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of two months from the date of his release on bail. 3) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or other prosecution witnesses in the case.

4) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the juri ictional court concerned. 5) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when directed in writing to do so. (R. Narayana Pisharadi, Judge) //// P.A. To Judge ss