Allowed

Liby Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2016Bail Appl./1006/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application regarded offences of cheating and forgery under IPC. The High Court noted the delayed filing of the suit and the civil dispute flavour involved in the allegations of impersonation and forgery. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners subject to conditions of appearance for interrogation, execution of bond, and non-intimidation.

Liby Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1006 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1588/2015 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.2, 3, 4 AND 7 :

¶8

1. DR.LIBY MATHEW, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.PRAKASH MATHEW, VALLIPLACKAL HOUSE, ANAVILASAM P.O., KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SHEEJA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.ADV.BINOY GEORGE, CHERUKARA HOUSE, EROOR WEST P.O, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3. ADV.BINOY GEORGE, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, CHERUKARA HOUSE, EROOR WEST P.O, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4. SINDHU, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.DR.ABHILASH, PANACKAL HOUSE, EROOR WEST P.O, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶19

B.A.No. 1006 of 2016

¶20

Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners are the accused nos. 2,3 4 and 7 in Crime No.1588/2015 of Hill Palace Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

The crux of the allegation of the de facto complainant is that the property belonging to the de facto complainant along with others was purported to have been assigned by a document allegedly executed by her in the year 2004. Now the contention of the de facto complainant is that she has not executed that document and the accused have impersonated and forged the document.

¶24

When the matter was taken up, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 4^th petitioner herein is not an accused. This is recored. The question that arises is whether the disputed document is a forged one or not and brought into existence by impersonation.

¶25

It appears that the suit is instituted after

¶26

B.A.No. 1006 of 2016

¶27

¶28

much delay from the date of the document. The question essentially has a flavour of civil dispute also. Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶29

(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶30

(b) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.

¶31

(c ) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶32

The bail application is allowed as above.

¶33

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶34

//TRUE COPY//

¶35

¶36

P.A. TO JUDGE

Liby Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liby 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

Sarath Vs State of Kerala

Jose Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Jasimu V.Y. Vs the State of Kerala

Sajeev Vs State of Kerala