Dismissed

Jibu D. Mathew v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police

Kerala HC22 Feb 2018Bail Appl./1257/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a bail application for a Border Security Force Commandant accused of corruption and alleged smuggling. The court emphasized the serious allegations involving national security, the likelihood of flight, and the need for a detailed investigation by the National Investigation Agency.

What did the court decide?

Bail application stood dismissed; investigation conducted by National Investigation Agency was mandated.

Jibu D. Mathew Vs State Represented by the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1257 of 2018

¶6

(RC 1(A)/2018/CBI/ACB/COCHIN)

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED

¶8

JIBU D. MATHEW AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.SHRI. MATHEW P., COMMANDANT, 83 BATTALION, BSF WEST BENGAL, PULINILKUNNATHIL HOUSE, ELANTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689643.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.N.ANILKUMAR SRI.GHILS P. MATHEW SMT.P.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION/ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, COCHIN-682018.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, SPL.P.P. FOR C.B.I.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶15

¶16

Bail Application No.1257 of 2018

¶17

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22^nd day of February 2018

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.RC 01(A)/2018/CBI/ACB/COCHIN registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short the P.C. Act').

¶20

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as follows:- The petitioner was the Commandant of 83 Battalion of Border Security Force. He received bribe of about Rs.50 lakh from smugglers operating along International Border of India and Bengladesh, where his

¶21

BA 1257/18 : 2 :

¶22

battalion was deployed for border security duty. On getting information regarding the illegal activities of the petitioner, he was followed while he was travelling in Shalimar Express train from Shalimar to Kayamkulam and he was intercepted when he got down at Aleppey Railway Station on 30.1.2018 at 5.15 p.m. He carried a suit case which contained an amount of Rs.45,30,500/-. He was arrested from the spot. Subsequently, he was produced before the court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (CBI/SPE), Thiruvananthapuram on 31.1.2018. The learned special Judge remanded the petitioner to the custody of CBI till 12.2.2018. After interrogation, the petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge remanded the petitioner to judicial custody.

¶23

BA 1257/18

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

The petitioner has filed this application under

¶26

Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned retainer counsel for CBI.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner constituting the offences alleged and in the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Per contra, the learned retainer counsel for CBI has argued that there are allegations against the petitioner constituting the offences under the P.C. Act as well as the offences under some other Acts, which are yet to be unfounded during the course of investigation and in the said circumstances, it will not be safe to release the

¶29

BA 1257/18

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

petitioner on bail at this stage.

¶32

It is not disputed that the petitioner was working as

¶33

the Commandant of Border Security Force at the International Border of India and Bangladesh. The petitioner has not given any explanation so far, as to how he happened to be in possession of Rs.45,30,500/- in his brief case when he landed at Alappuzha. It appears from the investigation conducted so far that the above said amount is the part of the bribe money received by the petitioner from the smugglers. The petitioner was entrusted with the task of guarding the safety and security of the Nation, which includes prevention of intruders including terrorists and smugglers into the Nation. However, it is alleged that the petitioner collected bribe from the smugglers and permitted the smugglers to cross

¶34

BA 1257/18

¶35

: 5 :

¶36

the International Border between India and Bangladesh.

¶37

It is stated in the objection filed by the retainer counsel for CBI that the investigation so far conducted has revealed that another person namely Shri Bishu Sheik, who is an international smuggler, was assisted by the petitioner in smuggling cattle, drugs etc., crossing the IndiaBangladesh Border. The above said Bishu Sheik is investing money for purchasing cattle. The said Bishu Sheik also used to distribute the cattle to poor cattle couriers on payment basis. The cattle are used as couriers. Cattle are also used for carrying Hawala across the Border. The learned retainer counsel has submitted that it is suspected that the cattle are used for smuggling arms and narcotic drugs, crossing the Border. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner had frequent contact

¶38

BA 1257/18

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

with Bangladesh numbers, especially the number of the above said Bishu Sheik. It has been stated by the learned retainer counsel for the CBI that the number of Bishu is

¶41

also stored in the contact list of the petitioner.

¶42

The petitioner, being the Commandant of BSF, was entrusted with the task of protecting and safeguarding the interest of the Nation. However, the petitioner instead of safeguarding the interest of the Nation, accepted bribe from the smuggles and permitted the smugglers to cross the border with smuggled items, including narcotic drugs and weapons. Having gone through the allegations raised against the petitioner, it appears that the allegations primafacie constitute the ingredients of various offences, including the offences under the P.C. Act. The learned retainer counsel for CBI has submitted that the

¶43

BA 1257/18 : 7 :

¶44

investigation so far conducted revealed strong suspicion to

¶45

the effect that the petitioner helped the terrorists by permitting them to smuggle Hawala money, weapons etc. crossing the International Border and in the said circumstances, the investigation has to be conducted in association with the National Investigation Agency. Considering the seriousness and the nature of the allegations raised against the petitioner, I am of the view that the submission of the learned retainer counsel for CBI that this is a matter to be seriously investigated with the association of the National Investigation Agency, cannot be sidelined. Considering the nature and gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, I am of the view that an extensive investigation by the National Investigation Agency, to find out as to whether the

¶46

BA 1257/18

¶47

: 8 :

¶48

petitioner was involved in any act of betraying the Nation by assisting the terrorists and smugglers, is necessary, as rightly submitted by the learned retainer counsel for CBI. This court expects that the authorities concerned will conduct a detailed investigation with regard to the above said aspects at the earliest, taking into consideration of the interest of the Nation. Suffice it to say that having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that there are materials to primafacie connect the petitioner with the offences alleged. That apart, if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is likelihood that the petitioner will flee from the country as it appears that the petitioner is having contacts with international smugglers. It further appears that granting bail to the petitioner at this stage will be a threat to the security of the Nation. In view of the

¶49

BA 1257/18

¶50

: 9 :

¶51

above reasons, I am of the view that it is not safe to release

¶52

the petitioner on bail at this stage.

¶53

In the result, this application stands dismissed.

¶54

I make it clear that I have not expressed any

¶55

observation with regard to the merits of the case and the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of

¶56

disposing of this application.

¶57

¶58

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶59

dl/.22.2.18

¶60

// True copy //

¶61

PA to Judge

Jibu D. Mathew v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jibu D. Mathew v. State Represented by the 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

Lubaina .J Vs Inspector of Police

Sijo Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Abdul Hameed Vs M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.

Shajitha Vs State of Kerala

M.Karunakaran Vs State

Latha Vs State of Kerala