SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mathews @ Mathappan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 27TH BHADRA,
1941

Bail Appl..No.6539 OF 2019

CRIME NO.350/2019 OF Kodakara Police Station , Thrissur

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 MATHEWS @ MATHAPPAN,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.KOCHAPPAN, KATTADY HOUSE, AZHAKAM,
KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

2 JUSTINE,
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.JOHNSON, KATTADY HOUSE, AZHAKAM, KODAKARA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.K.SURESH BABU (KANDENGHAT)

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
(IN CRIME NO.350/2019 OF KODAKARA POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT)

*ADDL.R2 JIJI,
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O. OF SHAJU, KALLIKKADAN HOUSE, GANDHINAGAR
DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.

* ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED IN THE BAIL APPLICATION AS PER
ORDER IN CRL M.A NO.2/2019 DATED 18.09.2019.

R2 BY ADV. N.L.BITTO

OTHER PRESENT:
R1 BY SRI.B.JAYASURYA-SR.PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA 6539/2019

-2-

O R D E R

[Dated this the 18th day of September 2019 ]

The first petitioner is the uncle of the

second petitioner, who both are accused in Crime

No.350/2019 of Kodakara Police Station for having

allegedly committed an offence punishable under

Sections 341, 323, 354, 294(b) and 506 read with

Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in

brief is that on 2.8.2019, the defacto complainant, a

lady, accompanied by her 20 year old son had gone to

the house of the first accused demanding back certain
blank cheques and documents allegedly handed over by

her in connection with a debt incurred by her, which

according to her, was already discharged. However, the

first petitioner continued to retain the documents

which she demanded back. The first petitioner

stealthily invited her inside a room in his house and

attempted to grope her and thereby, outraged her
BA 6539/2019

-3-

modesty. He also abused her using filthy language and

also assaulted her and her son.

2. The petitioners would contend that the

defacto complainant is due to pay amounts to the first

petitioner due on a promissory note, and cheques were

also executed. Notice has been issued on dishonouring

of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and a civil suit already has been filed

before the Irinjalakkuda Munsiff’s Court for

realisation of the amount due on the promissory note.

The parties are at loggerheads and there is also a

counter case registered as Crime No.357/2019 against

the defacto complainant and her son under Sections 341,
Section323, Section448, Section354, Section506 and Section294(b) read with Section 34 IPC

for having allegedly outraged the modesty of the mother

of the second petitioner.

3. The documents would indicate that the

petitioners have no criminal antecedents and

admittedly, there is a civil dispute or a dispute

concerning lending of amount between the parties,
BA 6539/2019

-4-

pending. The only serious allegation against the

petitioners is one under Section 354 IPC. The

petitioners are not likely to abscond and are willing

to co-operate with the investigation. No custodial

interrogation appears to be necessary for the purpose

of this case. There is nothing to be recovered also.

Under such circumstances, I find that the petitioners

are entitled to pre-arrest bail in this matter.

In the result, this Bail Application is

allowed. It is directed that in the event of the

petitioners being arrested, they shall be released on

bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty

thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating

officer on the following conditions:

(1) They shall appear before the

investigating officer on every alternate

Monday between 9 am and 12 noon and co-operate

with the investigation, until further orders

or for a period of three months or until

filing of final report, whichever is earlier.
BA 6539/2019

-5-

(2) They shall not attempt to intimidate or

influence the witnesses.

(3) In the event of breach of any of the

above conditions, the prosecution is at

liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail

before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

jg
BA 6539/2019

-6-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

NIL

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS

ANNEXURE-R2(1) TRUE COPY OF POP 18 OF 2019 OF THE
MUNSIFF COURT IRINJALAKUDA DATED
14.8.2019.

ANNEXURE-R2(2) TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE UNDER
SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
ACT DATED 5.8.2019.

//TRUE COPY//

jg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation