Allowed

Eldhose Mathews, S/O.Mathews v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Sept 2015Bail Appl./4659/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner faced charges of forgery for fabricating passes for sand transportation. The Court granted bail but mandated surrender for interrogation within two weeks, execution of a bond with sureties, and stipulated conditions against influencing witnesses, with a covenant to attack bail, thereby making interrogation essen

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioner on bail upon surrender for interrogation, execution of bond with sureties, and compliance with specific conditions.

Eldhose Mathews, S/O.Mathews Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/18TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4659 of 2015 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 442/2015 OF OONUKAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

ELDHOSE MATHEWS, S/O.MATHEWS, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNNAPPILLY HOUSE, NERIAMANGALAM P.O., MANIMARUTHUMCHAL, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 686 693.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COURT COMPLEX, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031 (REPRESENTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO. 442/2015 OF OONKUMAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. T.Y.LALIZA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶16

B.A. No.4659 of 2015

¶17

-------------------------------------Dated this the 9^th day of September, 2015

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

Petitioner apprehends arrest in Crime No.442 of 2015 of Oonukal Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 473 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

Prosecution case, in short, is that the accused persons with an intention to gain unlawfully and cause loss to the Government by unlawful means, forged various passes dated 16.06.2015, 17.06.2015, 30.06.2015 and 02.07.2015 for transporting sand. It is contended by the prosecution that two unused passes were recovered from the lorry owned by the petitioner.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no material to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime apart from the two unused passes said to be recovered from the lorry owned by him. Whereas, the learned Prosecutor contended that the said four passes out of which two were used could be recovered from his vehicle.

¶24

¶25

BA No.4659/2015

¶26

From the nature of allegations, I am of the view that interrogation of the petitioner is highly essential for the advancement of the case. Therefore, the following orders:

¶27

i. Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within a period of two weeks and submit himself for interrogation. Thereafter he shall execute a bond for `25,000/- (Rupees twentyfive thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. In that event, he shall be released on bail in Crime No.442 of 2015 of Oonukal Police Station.

¶28

ii. The sureties shall produce documents to establish their

¶29

identity and solvency.

¶30

iii. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed for the purpose of investigation in the matter.

¶31

iv. He shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses.

¶32

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned

¶33

Magistrate having jurisdiction is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law without referring the matter to this Court.

¶34

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶35

cks

Eldhose Mathews, S/O.Mathews v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eldhose Mathews, S/O.Mathews v. State of Kerala

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

V.T.Pazhani Vs State of Kerala

Faisal Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sharafudeen Vs State of Kerala

Babukuttan Vs State Ofkerala

Vimal Kumar T.V. Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala