Allowed

M.M.Mathew v. the State of Kerala, Rep.by the Public

Kerala HC21 Oct 2009Bail Appl./6185/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bail application by an accused charged with criminal negligence over a tourist vessel capsizing. Court granted bail upon security and conditions for investigation cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum on conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer.

M.M.Mathew Vs the State of Kerala, Rep.by the Public — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931

¶3

Bail Appl..No. 6185 of 2009() ---------------------------------------------(CRIME NO.208/CR/KTM/2009 OF CBCID, KOTTAYAM) (CRIME NO.395 OF 2009 OF KUMILY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3: -----------------------------------------M.MATHEWS,AGED 53, S/O.M.M.VARKEY, MARANGATTIL HOUSE, BOC ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, (CHIEF INSPECTOR OF BOATS, CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD,COCHIN) BY ADV. MR.B.RAMAN PILLAI MR.SREEKUMAR.G.(CHELUR) MR. RAVI K.

¶4

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------

¶5

STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶6

BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION MR.V.G.GOVINDAN NAIR

¶7

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶8

Kss

¶9

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶10

===========================

¶11

B.A.No.6185 OF 2009

¶12

===========================

¶13

Dated this the 21^st day of October,2009

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Petitioner is the third accused in Crime 395/2009 of Kumily Police Station. The case was registered under section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure consequent to the death of several persons when Jalakanyaka the vessel owned and used by Kerala Tourism Development Corporation capsized in Thekkady Dam on 3.9.2009. Later offence under section 280 and 304 read with section 34 of IPC were incorporated and petitioner and others were implicated as accused. Learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that later on additional offences were also incorporated and is being investigated. Petitioner was the Chief Inspector of Boats, Civil Station, Kakkanad who had issued the necessary certificate which enabled the Tourism Department to use Jalakanyaka for transporting tourists. The case of the petitioner is that as per S.R.O. No.637/2007 when a fitness certificate is to be issued in respect of a vessel made of Fiber Reinforced Plastics and having passenger capacity of 25 or more,

¶16

B.A.6185

¶17

¶18

before issuing the fitness certificate for the first time a certificate from the Indian Register of Shipping regarding the strength and seaworthiness of the vessel is to be insisted and Annexure B certificate issued by the Surveyor to Indian Register of Shipping shows that the vessel has been built satisfactorily under their supervision and necessary tests were conducted satisfactorily and by Annexure C letter of the Director of Department of Tourism it was forwarded to the petitioner and based on that fitness certificate was issued and in such circumstance petitioner has not shown any negligence and hence he is not liable for any offence.

¶19

The question whether petitioner was negligent in issuing fitness certificate and whether the fitness certificate was issued in accordance with the Rules after satisfaction of its strength and seaworthiness, is not a matter to be decided in this petition. The only question is whether petitioner is to be released on bail. It is admitted case that petitioner was arrested on 8.10.2009 and since then he has been in custody. All the other accused were already released on bail by this Court. I do not find it necessary to continue the detention of the petitioner, if sufficient assurance could be made for the presence of the petitioner for the purpose of investigation and precautions are taken so that investigation is not being

¶20

B.A.6185 3

¶21

interfered by the petitioner. In such circumstance, petitioner could be granted bail. Petition is allowed. Petitioner be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Peermade on the following conditions.

¶22

Petitioner shall appear before

¶23

the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday for two months and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶24

Petitioner shall not induce, threaten or influence any person from disclosing facts known to them to the Investigating Officer or to the court.

¶25

Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not leave India without the permission of the learned Magistrate.

¶26

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶27

tpl/-

¶28

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶29

W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶30

--------------------JUDGMENT

¶31

SEPTEMBER,2006

M.M.Mathew v. the State of Kerala, Rep.by the Public

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.Mathew v. the State of Kerala, Rep.by the Public

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ussain Vs State of Kerala and Another

Anzar Vs State of Kerala

Babu Jayaraj Vs C.Babu

R.P.Sarma Vs State of Kerala

M.S.Hariharan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer Vs State of Kerala