Allowed

Joseph Mathew v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC9 Apr 2019Bail Appl./743/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. acknowledging a pending civil dispute and lack of criminal antecedents, directing release subject to bond and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a bond of Rs. 40,000, two solvcent sureties, surrender within ten days, and conditions not to tamper with investigation.

Joseph Mathew Vs the Station House Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 743 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 220/2018 OF Town West Police Station , Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

JOSEPH MATHEW AGED 56 YEARS S/O (LATE) S.J. MATHEW, M/S. PRIME ROOFING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

2 K.M.MOHANDAS MANAGING PARTNER, WEST FORT HOSPITAL, WEST FORT, THRISSUR-680 004.

¶13

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT.V.SREEJA,PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 743 of 2019

¶19

-2-

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.220 of

¶22

2018 of Thrissur Town West Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 407 and 420 IPC.

¶23

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as

¶24

follows:-

¶25

The petitioner is the owner of an institution, namely, Prime Roofing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The de-facto complainant entrusted construction job with the above said concern of the petitioner. After completing the construction, the measurement was wrongly taken by the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner received 15.17% excess amount from the de-facto complainant. The said aspect was revealed only when the measurement was taken by

¶26

Bail Appl..No. 743 of 2019 -3-

¶27

the de-facto complainant on 12.10.2017.

¶28

The petitioner has filed this application praying for

¶29

the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶30

Heard.

¶31

The learned senior counsel, Sri K. Dandapani appearing for the 2^nd respondent has opposed the application.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that

¶33

there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. It has been admitted by both sides that civil case is pending between the parties in respect of the issue involved in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in

¶34

favour of the petitioner will be justified in this case.

¶35

In the result, this application stands allowed and

¶36

Bail Appl..No. 743 of 2019 -4-

¶37

respondent Nos.1 and 3 are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime

¶38

No.220 of 2018 of Thrissur Town West Police Station 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 1^st respondent, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following conditions:

¶39

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for two months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶40

(ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or

¶41

Bail Appl..No. 743 of 2019

¶42

-5-

¶43

influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶44

(iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case.

¶45

¶46

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶47

dl/9.4

Joseph Mathew v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Mathew v. the Station House Officer

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

Sonal, Vs State of Kerala

Naseer.K.Habeeb @ Biju, Vs the State of Kerala

Asha Sajeevan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Babu.S. Vs State of Kerala

Mohamed Ismail, Vs State of Kerala

Sajeer Vs State of Kerala