Allowed

Monson K. Mathew v. the C.B.I

Kerala HC8 Feb 2018Bail Appl./464/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the seventh accused in a corruption FIR involving public fund misappropriation by a bank employee. Acknowledging the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents, the court deemed it a fit case to allow bail upon surrender and execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail on condition of executing a bond for Rs.40,000 with two sureties, reporting to the Investigating Officer every Saturday, and not leaving Kerala without leave.

Monson K. Mathew Vs the C.B.I — 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 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 19TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 464 of 2018

¶6

(R.C.No. 4(A)/ 2017/ CBI/ ACB/ COCHIN of CBI, ACB, Cochin, Ernakulam District.)

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/7th ACCUSED

¶8

MONSON K. MATHEW, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, PAVADA, ADOOR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL, CBI, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. (RC.NO.4(A)2017/CBI/ACB/COCHIN)

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S AJITHKUMAR, SC, C.B.I.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶15

¶16

Bail Application No.464 of 2018

¶17

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8^th day of February 2018

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the seventh accused in Crime

¶20

R.C.No. 4(A)/ 2017/ CBI/ ACB/ COCHIN registered for

¶21

the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶22

The petitioner has filed this application praying

¶23

for the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

BA. 464/2018

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

The prosecution allegation is that the first accused in the crime, while working as the Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Pandalam, committed criminal conspiracy with the co-accused and by abusing his official authority and by recourse to corrupt and illegal means, sanctioned and disbursed huge public fund of the bank amounting to Rs.306.47 lakhs, during the period from 8.8.2011 to 17.8.2013, in violation of the orders and circulars of bank, deceptively under the financial schemes like Bhoomilakshmi loan and Small and Medium Enterprises loans to private loanees, who are arrayed as A2 to A5 and thereby, the 1^st accused and the private loanees obtained undue pecuniary advantage without any public interest.

¶28

This court, as per common order dated 6.2.2018 in B.A. Nos.6536 of 2017 and 555 of 2018, dismissed the

¶29

BA. 464/2018

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

application filed by the first accused and allowed the application filed by the eighth accused, who was the Assistant Manager under the first accused, for some period. There is no serious allegation against the petitioner. It appears that the prime allegation is that if he had been more diligent, the fraud by the first accused could have been avoided. The petitioner is aged 58 years. He is not having any criminal antecedent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of allegations raised against the petitioner, I am of the view that this is a fit case where an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be justified. It is ordered accordingly.

¶32

In the result, this application stands allowed and the respondent is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime R.C.No. 4(A)/

¶33

BA. 464/2018

¶34

: 4 :

¶35

2017/ CBI/ ACB/COCHIN of CBI, ACB, Cochin on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.40,000/(Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within 10 days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for two months and thereafter,

¶37

as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶38

(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the state of Kerala without the leave of the learned Special Judge concerned.

¶39

BA. 464/2018

¶40

: 5 :

¶41

(iii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or

¶42

influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with

¶43

the investigation.

¶44

(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the

¶45

investigation.

¶46

¶47

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶48

dl/7.2.18

¶49

// True copy //

¶50

PA to Judge

Monson K. Mathew v. the C.B.I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monson K. Mathew v. the C.B.I

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

Babu Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Rema M. Vs M/S. Rich Field Chitties Pvt. Ltd.

Sajikumaranachari Vs Mohammed Sherief@Shaji

Shihab Vs Debesh Kumar Behra

Rajeshkumar.T.K Vs State of Kerala

Sherin T.S Vs Rene Gladstone