Allowed

Abymon Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Mar 2021Bail Appl./1709/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-bench judgment of the Kerala High Court on 23.03.2021 allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The eight petitioners were accused of offences including unlawful assembly and assault under the IPC arising from an agitation at a Forest Range office.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed upon execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties and compliance with conditions regarding witnesses and investigation.

Abymon Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

Bail Appl.No.1709 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.246/2021 OF Kothamangalam Police Station , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 ABYMON MATHEW,

¶9

AGED 35 YEARS, SON OF MATHEW, KUNNAPPILLIL HOUSE, NERIAMANGALAM P.O., MANIMARUTHUMCHAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 686693.

¶10

2 AKHIL POULOSE, AGED 26 YEARS, SON OF POULOSE, PADUVANAL HOUSE NERIAMANGALAM P.O, AVOLICHAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3 ABIN PETER, AGED 25 YEARS, SON OF PETER, MANDAPATHIL HOUSE, NERIAMANGALAM P.O, AVOLICHAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

4 NOBLE P.F AGED 34 YEARS, SON OF FRANCIS, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, NERIAMANGALAM P.O, AVOLICHAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

5 ROBIN P.F AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF FRANCIS, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, NERIAMANGALAM P.O, AVOLICHAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

6 JOBIN SAVIER AGED 35 YEARS, SON OF SAVIER, CHATHOLIL HOUSE, NERIAMANGALAM P.O, AVOLICHAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

Bail Appl.No.1709 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

7 JOHNSON RAPHEL, AGED 53 YEARS, SON OF RAPHEL, KANICHAMKUNNATHU HOUSE, PINDIMANA P.O, MUTHAMKUZHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶18

8 ANEXON K.JOHNSON AGED 28 YEARS, SON OF JOHNSON, KANICHAMKUNNATHU, PINDIMANA P.O MUTHAMKUZHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶20

RESPONDENT/S:

¶21

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031.

¶22

R1 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

Bail Appl.No.1709 OF 2021

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Dated this the 23rd day of March 2021

¶29

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶30

The applicants are accused 1 to 8 in Crime

¶31

No.246/2021 of Kothamangalam Police Station for having

¶32

allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 353, 294(b), 323, 427 and 448 read

¶33

with Section 149 of the I.P.C.

¶34

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

¶35

09.02.2021, two accused persons were arrested in

¶36

connection with a forest offence which was registered as O.R.No.2/2021 of Kothamangalam Forest Range for

¶37

having allegedly killed a wild boar. While the accused

¶38

were in custody and the process of investigation was

¶39

going on, a mob consisting of the applicants and some

¶40

others formed an unlawful assembly in front of the

¶41

Kothamangalam Forest Range Office and allegedly

¶42

assaulted the de facto complainant and two other police

¶43

¶44

Bail Appl.No.1709 OF 2021

¶45

officers, who were performing their duty in the forest station and deterred them from performing their duty as public servants and they also allegedly caused damage to the private car of the de facto complainant, which was parked in front of the office and caused a loss of Rs.11,800/- to the de facto complainant.

¶46

The applicants on the other hand would state

¶47

that the 1st accused is Ex-Member of Kavalangad Grama Panchayat and on getting information that some of the

¶48

accused have been arrested in connection with the forest offence and were detained beyond the period of 24 hours in violation of the provisions in the Cr.P.C. The Ex-Panchayat Member accompanied with other accused, including the son of the accused in the forest case, reached the forest office and enquired about the delay in not producing the accused before the Magistrate.

¶49

Aggrieved by that, the forest officials tried to send them back and aggrieved by that the mob started an agitation before the Forest Office. Immediately, as directed by the Dy.S.P. of Kothamangalam, the police party allegedly reached there and dispersed the mob

¶50

¶51

Bail Appl.No.1709 OF 2021

¶52

including the accused. The accused in the forest crime was thereafter produced before the Magistrate; because it was late in the night the Magistrate directed that the accused be produced before the court in the morning and accordingly they were produced in the morning and remanded to judicial custody. The applicants would contend that had the police party been compelled to dispel the crowd, definitely the accused would have to be taken into custody for committing the offence as alleged by the prosecution. A formal complaint was

¶53

filed by the forest officials only 5.51 PM on the

¶54

following day and not immediately. Had the forest officials called the police officers to come and dispel the crowd, it should have been formed a complaint by itself attracting an offence under Section 353 and the applicants should have been taken into custody immediately. But without doing so, they were only dispersed. This indicates that it was only a silent protest without causing any damage or injury to the forest officials. Moreover, an offence under Section 332 is not incorporated and only an offence under

¶55

¶56

Bail Appl.No.1709 OF 2021

¶57

Section 323 is mentioned in the F.I.R. and the offence

¶58

under Section 448 for having committed trespassing into

¶59

the dwelling house is not attracted, because the

¶60

prosecution case itself is that the applicants were agitating in front of the Forest Office and not in front of a dwelling house. Under the circumstances, there are a lot of infirmities in the allegations made by the prosecution, which enables the applicants to get an anticipatory bail. The applicants admittedly do not have any criminal antecedents.

¶61

After hearing the submissions made by the

¶62

learned Counsel appearing for the applicants and the

¶63

Public Prosecutor very anxiously, I am of the opinion

¶64

the applicants need not be incarcerated since there is nothing to be recovered from them.

¶65

In the result, the bail application is allowed and

¶66

the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of

¶67

arrest, after interrogation and recovery, if any, the

¶68

applicants shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)

¶69

¶70

Bail Appl.No.1709 OF 2021

¶71

each, with two solvent sureties for the like amount

¶72

each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶73

(i) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶74

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation; and

¶75

(iii) During the bail period, they shall not get involved in any similar offences.

¶76

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the

¶77

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

dkr

JUDGE

Abymon Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abymon Mathew 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

Ajmal K Vs State of Kerala

Albert Augustine K.J Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Pannackal Ittykunju Vs State of Kerala

Sourav Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh Vs State of Kerala