Allowed

Noble Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Nov 2015Bail Appl./6906/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted bail with strict conditions to accused in a private complaint case alleging rape and cheating. Applicant must surrender within two weeks for interrogation. Bail liable to be cancelled on violation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to surrender within two weeks, submit for interrogation, execute bond for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, and comply with conditions regarding investigation and witness safety.

Noble Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6906 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 448/2015 OF SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

NOBLE MATHEW, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, MATHANATTU HOUSE, CHERUPURAM RAJAKKAD P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 566.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

--------------------------

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED

¶14

2. REENA ULAHANNA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.ULAHANNAN, KOCHUNIRAVATH, CHEMMANNUR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶15

ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.26.11.2015 IN CRL.MA.10460/2015.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶20

B.A.No.6906 of 2015

¶21

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2015

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶24

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.448 of 2015 of Santhanpara Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The case arise out of a private complaint filed before the Magistrate which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶25

Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

Prosecution case is that for the last 2 years the accused subjected the defacto complainant for forcible sexual intercourse on several occasions at her residence and other places by promising to marry her. It is further alleged that the defacto complainant threatened to do away with her life.

¶27

¶28

B.A.No.6906 of 2015

¶29

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relying on Annexures-1 to 12 contended that the defacto complainant is a person of a shady character. According to him, her former husband obtained a divorce through Family Court. Later, she filed a complaint against another person stating that he impregnated her during the subsistence of her first marriage. F.I.Rs have been produced to show that she is in the habit of filling cases. Annexure-6 is the agreement to assign executed between the defacto complainant and the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the defacto complainant is pressurising the petitioner to return the land agreed to be assigned as per the said agreement.

¶30

Learned counsel for the defacto complainant contended that from the nature of the allegations the petitioner is not entitled to get any anticipatory bail.

¶31

After hearing counsel on both sides and on perusal of the records, the following directions are issued.

¶32

B.A.No.6906 of 2015

¶33

¶34

(a) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within a period of 'two weeks' from today and submit himself for interrogation. After medical examination, if required, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for `50,000/- (Rupees fifity thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶35

(b) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of interrogation.

¶36

¶37

(d) The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶38

(e) The petitioner shall not in any manner interfere or meddle with the investigation.

¶39

B.A.No.6906 of 2015

¶40

¶41

(f) The petitioner shall not, during the period

¶42

of this bail get involved in any offence.

¶43

In case any of the above conditions is violated, bail

¶44

granted hereby is liable to be cancelled for which the investigating officer may move application before the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶45

A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶46

Noble Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noble Mathew 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rejeendran @ Biju Vs State of Kerala

Shivashanmugham Vs State of Kerala

Suhara.a Vs State of Kearala

Shameera Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Gokul Vs the State of Kerala

Bineesh Vs State of Kerala