Kerala High Court
Binu Mathai vs The State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 9828 OF 2021
CRIME NO.668/2018 OF Chittar Police Station, Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BINU MATHAI
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI MATHAI, PATHALIL, PAMPINI,
CHITTAR P.O., CHITTAR VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689663.
BY ADVS.
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
M.KIRANLAL
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
T.S.SARATH
SAMEER M NAIR
HARSHA SUSAN SAM
GEETHU KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, -682031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
POLICE STATION OF CHITTAR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689663.
SMT. SEETHA S., SR. P.P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.9828/2021 -2-
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.668/2018 of Chittar Police Station,
Pathanamthitta District alleging commission of offences under Sections 406 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code. The said crime was originally registered for the
offences punishable under Section 376, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. By Annexure-A2 judgment dated 14-12-2021 in Crl. M.C.
No.7967/2018 the offences under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were
quashed by this court. However, it was found that the allegations against the
petitioner for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC have to be thoroughly
investigated. The petitioner apprehends arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the only
remaining allegations are that under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and
considering the fact that the allegations are raised by a person who was living
together with the petitioner for more than 12 years, custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is not necessary. It is submitted that the petitioner shall co-operate with
the investigation in every manner.
3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking
into account the nature of the allegations raised against the petitioner, I am of the
view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. However
the petitioner can be directed to report before the Investigating officer in Crime
No.668/2018 of Chittar Police Station for 3 days from 13-01-2022 till 15-01-2022.
In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall
be released on bail, in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.668/2018 of
Chittar Police Station subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the jurisdictional Court;
(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation in every manner and
shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime No.668/2018 of Chittar Police
Station at 9 a.m on 13-01-2022, 14-01-2022 & 15-01-2022 and thereafter whenever
called upon to do so;
(iii) Petitioner shall shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or
interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime
No.668/2018 of Chittar Police Station;
(iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.
If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in
Crime No.668/2018 of Chittar Police Station may file an application before the
jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
