Allowed

Bathisha Tharif v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Kerala HC24 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/714/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the order dismissing the petitioner's application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC, as the trial court failed to state reasons or consider submitted grounds. The matter is remanded for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the CMP (Annexure-A1) is set aside, and the court below is directed to dispose of Crl.M.P. 112 of 2016 afresh with a hearing.

Bathisha Tharif Vs Central Bureau of Investigation — Corruption | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 2ND ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 714 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2/2015 of ENQ.COMMR. & SPL.JUDGE,(SPE CBI), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶8

BATHISHA THARIF

¶9

S/O. BATHISHA, T.C 46/865(1), MANICKAVILAKOM, POONTHURA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.VIJAYAN SRI.B.VINOTH SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN SRI.K.R.RAJESHKUMAR SRI.S.SURESH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REP. BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM. S. AJITHKUMAR -SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 714 of 2018

¶17

-2-

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The revision petitioner is the 11th accused in C.C. No. 2 of 2015 on the files of the court below. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120 B read with Section 420 IPC.

¶20

The petitioner has filed CMP No. 112/2016 before the court below praying for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The said CMP was dismissed by the courts below as per Annexure-A1 order, against which this Crl.R.P. has been filed.

¶21

Heard

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below did not assign any reason for dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner before the court below seeking for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and in the said circumstances

¶23

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 714 of 2018

¶24

-3-

¶25

Annexure-A1 order cannot be sustained. It appears that the petitioenr has raised so many grounds before the court below seeking for discharge. However, the court below did not consider any such ground in Annexure – A1 order. It is true that the court should not elborately consider the materials at the stage of hearing on discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The court is also not expected to state anything about the probative value of the materials available before the court at this stage. However, the court has to be satisfied that the charge against the accused is not groundless before dismissing the application for discharge.

¶26

In this case, the petitioner filed CMP No. 112 of 2016 raising various contentions. Therefore, the court below should have briefly stated the reason for dismissing the said CMP. The court below should have mentioned about the materials available in the final report as against the petitioner before dismissing the application for discharge. Since the court below did not consider any of the grounds urged by the petitioner, I am of the view that Annexure-

¶27

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 714 of 2018

¶28

A1 order passed by the court below cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same.

¶29

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed, setting aside Annexure-A1 order passed by the court below to the extent it relates to the petitioner and the court below is directed to dispose of Crl.M.P. 112 of 2016 afresh, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶30

This Crl.Revision Petition stands disposed of as above.

¶31

Dated this the 24th day of September, 2018.

¶32

SD/-B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶33

ani/

¶34

/true copy/

¶35

P.S. to Judge

Bathisha Tharif v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathisha Tharif v. Central Bureau of Investigation

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

Sajeev.S Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash T.S. Vs State of Kerala

Shaju Athomas Vs Aji Raghavan

T.K. Basheer & Co. Vs Lal Tech Enterprises (P) Ltd.

T.K. Basheer & Co. Vs Lal Tech Enterprises (P) Ltd.

Ajith Ravi Vs Maradu Municipality