Allowed

1. Basil P Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Mar 2021Bail Appl./552/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an application for anticipatory bail for accused persons in a crime involving alleged assault, grievous hurt, and mischief during a property and pathway dispute. The court directed surrender to the investigating officer and specified bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with conditions; accused directed to surrender within two weeks; bond of Rs. 50,000 each with sureties required.

1. Basil P Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

Bail Appl..No.552 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.4/2021 OF Koorachundu Police Station, Kozhikode

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 BASIL P MATHEW AGED 57 YEARS S/O P.M.MATHEW, PUNUMATTAM MARIYIL HOUSE, MARKET POST,MOOVATTUPUZHA,NOW RESIDING AT NAVANEETHAM 4/323 DAM SITE ROAD, KAKKAYAM POST,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673615 673615

¶9

2 JOY PATHADAN AGED 58 YEARS S/O ANTONY, PATHADAN HOUSE, KAKKAYAM POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673615 673615

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶13

2 ADDL. R2 VIVEK.S AGED 39 YEARS S/O.SATHEESH BABU,MOHAN PLANTATIONS,HOUSE NO 4/348,KAKKAYAM,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10/02/2021 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1/2021.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶15

SRI.S.SAJJU SR PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 552/2021

O R D E R

Dated this the 26th day of March 2021

¶21

This is an application seeking anticipatory bail.

¶22

The applicants are accused 1 and 2 in Crime

¶23

No. 4/2021 of Koorachund Police Station, Kozhikode district for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 308, 294(b) and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequently, offences under Sections 397 and 506(ii) IPC have also been incorporated.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicants are the workers of the owner of a property named Mohan Plantations. The owner is in Newzealand and the applicants are allegedly entrusted to manage and oversee the property, which consists of a rubber plantation. There are existing disputes between the de facto complainant and the owner of this plantation regarding the existence of a pathway through the Mohan Plantation. A suit was pending before the Munsiff's Court as OS No.198/2013 filed by the owner of Mohan Plantations restraining the de facto complainant

¶25

¶26

BA 552/2021

¶27

from using the pathway. The injunction application was disallowed by the Munsiff Court, over which the plaintiff therein filed a CMA before the Sub Court, Koyilandi and the CMA was allowed granting a temporary prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the de facto complainant and his men from trespassing into the property and using the pathway. A CRP was filed by the de facto complainant before this Court and this Court directed maintenance of status quo of the pathway as reported by the Commission in his report. However, the order in the CMA has not been suspended or modified. Therefore, as it stands now, the injunction against the de facto complainant entering the property and using the pathway continues.

¶28

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant allegedly used the pathway on 01.01.2021 at about 4 p.m. in his tractor and the applicants and some other persons allegedly restrained him from doing so and also hurled abuses at him. Ignoring their objections he proceeded. He was attacked by means of dangerous weapons, like iron rod and stick, with the knowledge that it could prove fatal. As a result, he sustained some

¶29

¶30

BA 552/2021

¶31

injuries, and thus they attempted to commit culpable homicide. They also committed mischief by causing damage to his tractor.

¶32

The applicants state that they are innocent and the allegations are not true and it was the de facto complainant who in violation of the order in the CMA trespassed into the property using his tractor and when the applicants and other workers in the Plantation prevented that, he attempted to run over them using his tractor, as a result of which there was an altercation between them and the applicants allegedly attacked the de facto complainant and his tractor with a stick and an iron rod. The applicants state that they did not assault the de facto complainant as alleged and in fact, when the de facto complainant attempted to retreat, the overhanging branches of trees caused the lacerated injuries on his body, noted in the wound certificate. It was not due to an assault by the applicants. It is also stated that no iron rod was used as alleged. But it was only a stick which was used by the applicants. The applicants have also relied on the photographs which were taken by the de facto complainant himself on his mobile phone and video footage of the said incident has also been produced by the

¶33

¶34

BA 552/2021

¶35

learned counsel appearing for the applicants to substantiate his argument that it was only the tractor which was attacked and the de facto complainant was never assaulted as alleged.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the

¶37

learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶38

The learned Prosecutor points out that in the milieu,

¶39

the de facto complainant had lost his gold chain and that is why offence under Section 397 IPC has also been incorporated later. There was also constant intimidation by the applicants and threat to the life of the de facto complainant, which led to the inclusion of Section 506(ii) IPC. The applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. The injury sustained by the de facto complainant is a 15 cm lacerated wound on the arms and certain abrasions on the scapular region. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants is that those abrasions were caused as a result of the twigs of the overhanging trees hitting him while he was retreating with his tractor. There is a possibility for that. But it will have to be proved during the trial and therefore, I am not intending

¶40

¶41

BA 552/2021

¶42

to comment upon those aspects. The fact remains that the de facto complainant had actually trespassed into the property in violation of the order in the CMA and therefore, the applicants had the right to use reasonable force to restrain him from trespassing into their property and to violate the order of injunction which was passed against him. Under the circumstances, I find that custodial interrogation of the applicants does not appear to be necessary. They are willing to co-operate with the investigation and assist in recovery.

¶43

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, after interrogation and recovery, they shall be released on bail on the execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions:

¶44

(i) They shall appear before the investigating officer as

¶45

and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶46

¶47

BA 552/2021

¶48

(ii) They shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶49

(iii) They shall not get involved in any similar offence during the currency of the bail.

¶50

In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

1. Basil P Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1. Basil P 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lejeesh Vs State of Kerala

Riyas T.V Vs Union of India

Danoop.v.v Vs State of Kerala

Safanaz Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Razak @ Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Nikesh K.P Vs State of Kerala