Dismissed

Tiju Mathew v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC25 Feb 2016Bail Appl./839/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application filed by two accused persons prosecuted for offenses under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was disposed of without granting pre-arrest bail. The court held that based on the serious allegations and injuries sustained by victims, pre-arrest bail was not a fit case, but allowed the petitioners to surrender and approach a magistrate for bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioners directed to surrender and apply for bail before a Magistrate.

Tiju Mathew Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/6TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 839 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 89/2016 OF VAZHAKULAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. TIJU MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS, VALOTHIL HOUSE, ENANELLOOR P.O., AVOLY, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 673.

¶9

2. TAJU MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 37 YEARS, VALOTHIL HOUSE, ENANELLOOR P.O., AVOLY, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 673.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI, SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI, SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHAKULAM POLICE STATION, VAZHAKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 670.

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y. LALIZA.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶18

B. A. No. 839 of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners who are brothers, stand indicted in Crime No.89/2016 of vazhakulam Police Station for offences punishable under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

According to the prosecution, on 23.11.2016 at 7.30 p.m., the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and another person and caused bodily injuries on them. The crime was registered.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in fact the petitioners were attacked by the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant and others did not sustain any injury worth mentioning. To support that argument, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had voluntarily gone to the General Hospital, Muvattupuzha on the same day and had undergone treatment. On a request by the learned counsel, the wound certificate of that admission was called for and produced by the Investigating agency, through the learned Public Prosecutor. It only shows that the 1^st petitioner herein had sustained an abrasion on the right mid finger with generalized body pain. In

¶24

B. A. No. 839 of 2016

¶25

¶26

that it is recorded that he was injured by one Jose Varghese and Babu in the midst of a festival in a temple.

¶27

However, the wound certificate in relation to one Shibu, who is the injured in this case indicates that he had sustained several injuries. The allegation is that he was hit with a stick on the back and head and hit with stone on the face. He had a contusion on the left eye, abrasion on the cheek, contusion around the left eye with a black eye, abrasion on the temporal scalp and some conjunctival hemorrhage of the left eye. There was a nasal bone fracture also. Another injured Babu Varkey had sustained abrasion on the face with contusion on the parietal area. He had a contusion on the nasal bone also.

¶28

Having regard to the nature of allegations and the injuries caused and also the fact that the weapon still remains to be recovered, I feel that, this is not a fit case for granting the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

¶29

However, the learned counsel for the petitioners offered to surrender. In the event of they surrendering before the Investigating Officer, after interrogation and recovery, if any, they shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate and any bail

¶30

B. A. No. 839 of 2016

¶31

¶32

application filed by them may be considered by the learned Magistrate preferably on the same day itself.

¶33

Bail application is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶36

/true copy/

¶37

P. A. to Judge

¶38

Tiju Mathew v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tiju Mathew v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

Latheef Vs State of Kerala

K.Lakshmanan Vs State of Kerala

Bijo Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Shamsudheen Vs State of Kerala

Kelothukandy Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Akkarakarathi Padmini Vs the State of Kerala