Allowed

Lizzy Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jun 2017Bail Appl./1910/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by two accused persons facing charges under the Indian Penal Code and Post Office Act. The court held that custodial interrogation was not required at this stage and granted bail subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with conditions to appear before Investigating Officer, execute bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties, appear on alternate days, and not leave India without permission. Order inoperat

Lizzy Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/16TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1910 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 788/2017 OF PALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :

¶8

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

¶9

1. LIZZY THOMAS,AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. P.M.JOSEPH, PULLOLICKAL HOUSE, PADINJATIN KARA, KADAPLAMATTOM, KOTTAYAM

¶10

2. P.M.JOSEPH,AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, PULLOLICKAL HOUSE, PADINJATIN KARA, KADAPLAMATTOM, KOTTAYAM

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶12

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT :

¶14

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

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682031 (CRIME NO.788/2017 OF PALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT)

¶16

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,PALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686575 (CRIME NO.788/2017 OF PALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT)

¶17

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA M.N.

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶21

Bail Application No.1910 of 2017

¶22

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2017

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This application is filed under section 438 of the Code of

¶25

Criminal Procedure.

¶26

The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.788/2017 of Pala Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 55 of Post Office Act, 1898.

¶27

The 1^st petitioner herein was working as Postmaster in the Meenachil Post Office. One Govindan Namboothiri was working as extra departmental person in the said office. According to the prosecution, Govindan Namboothiri went on leave for some time in the year 2010. The 1^st accused, who was the Postmaster, is alleged to have employed her husband, who is the 2^nd petitioner herein, in the place of Govindan Namboothiri. During August 2016, the Overseer inspected the

¶28

B.A.No.1910/2017 2

¶29

post office based on a complaint. It was revealed that Govindan Namboothiri had gone on leave and that the 2^nd petitioner was working in his place. It is on these allegations that a complaint was given by the Postal Inspector on 21.02.2017 based on which the instant crime was registered.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the allegation of the prosecution would be falsified by the documents maintained in the post office itself. It is pointed out there is a huge delay in setting the law in motion , in so far as the first inspection was conducted by the Overseer months back. It is also contended that Govindan Namboothiri had been working all through and had even attended a training in the month of August 2015. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are aged and ailing and pleaded that custodial interrogation was unwarranted .

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor, would submit , based on the case diary that the 1^st accused had manipulated the records and had manged to provide job to her husband i.e. the 2^nd petitioner by violating the rules and regulations.

¶32

I have considered the submissions advanced. Allegations and counter allegations have been raised. At this

¶33

B.A.No.1910/2017 3

¶34

stage, this Court will not be justified in coming to a prima facie finding with regard to these aspects. From the statement of Govindan Namboodhiri it appears that his job was on a temporary basis and that he was not entitled to any benefits. He used to take leave on regular basis and it was possible to employ someone else in his absence. He was drawing a salary of Rs 10,000/- per mensem and his substitute would be paid a sum of Rs 7000/-. These aspects will be revealed from the evidence available in the Post office itself. It does not appear to me that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for in the instant case. Necessary conditions can be imposed to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.

¶35

This application is hence allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶36

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

¶37

(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing

¶38

B.A.No.1910/2017

¶39

¶40

such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶41

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on Mondays and Saturdays for two months or till the final report is filed whichever is earlier..

¶42

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶43

(v) The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶44

(vi) If they surrender before the Magistrate, this order shall not be applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶45

(vii) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the concerned court on being noticed of that fact will be empowered to cancel the bail.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶48

smp

¶49

// True copy //

¶50

P.A to Judge.

Lizzy Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lizzy Thomas 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

Mini Ajayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Badarudin Vs State of Kerala

Shijin Vs State of Kerala

K.C. Lakshman Raj Vs State of Kerala

Shemeer Vs State of Kerala

Binu Mon E.V. Vs State of Kerala