Bail Applications Nos. 11092/2023 and 11212/2023 in Crime No.1655/2023, Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram v. State of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2024-04-01
- Court Decision / Holding
- The applications are allowed. The petitioners must surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days; on arrest, they must be produced before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender; the court shall release them on bail on bonds of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties each of like amount; petitioners must cooperate with the investigation, not intimidate witnesses, and comply with other standard bail conditions including surrender of passports if any; modifications or deletions of bail conditions may be sought; the Investigating Officer may proceed with recoveries if necessary under the guidelines including those cited in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).
- Final Disposition
- Bail granted to all petitioners; pre-arrest bail permitted with specified conditions (i–x). The matter was settled via mediation, influencing the decision to grant bail without custodial interrogation.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Jessy George
- Xavi Mano Mathew
- Sreeletha B.K.
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
- T.C. Mathew (defacto complainant)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • P.V. Anil Varghese N.G.
- • K.A. Salil Narayanan
Counsels for Respondents
- • Abraham Joseph Markos
- • V. Abraham Markos
- • Isaac Thomas
- • P.G. ChandapillaI Abraham
- • Alexander Joseph Markos
- • Sharad Joseph Kodanthara
- • John Vithayathil
- • Aibel Mathew Siby
Case Synopsis & Summary
The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, in a common order, deals with two bail petitions under Section 438 CrPC, 1973, arising from Crime No.1655/2023 (Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram). Petitioners/accused include Jessy George and Xavi Mano Mathew (BA 11212/2023) and Sreeletha B.K. (BA 11092/2023), facing charges under Sections 406, 409 and 420 r/w Section 34 IPC. The matter was admitted for consideration and, on 29.01.2024, the court referred the cases to the High Court Mediation Centre (07.02.2024) to explore settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioners, the State/Senior Public Prosecutor, and the defacto complainant’s counsel report that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant has been amicably settled through mediation. Thereafter, the court notes that custodial interrogation is not necessary and that the applications should be allowed. The bail order imposes standard conditions: surrender within ten days; production before the jurisdictional court if arrested; bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like amount; cooperation with investigation; no witness intimidation; surrender of passports; no involvement in other offences; and power to cancel/modify bail for breach. It also cites the Supreme Court precedent in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding recoveries during bail. The court grants pre-arrest bail in the circumstances, subject to the enumerated conditions.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submitted that the dispute with the defacto complainant has been amicably settled in mediation at the High Court Mediation Centre. They contended that custodial interrogation is unnecessary and requested pre-arrest bail with appropriate conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and surrender timelines.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents, including the State and the defacto complainant's counsel, joined in the mediation-based settlement submission, indicating that the matter has been amicably resolved. They implicitly supported granting bail in light of the settlement and the need to balance investigation with the parties’ settlement.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another | 2020 (1) KHC 663 | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that recoveries can be effected and investigations continued while a bail is in place; used to justify the bail orders and the conditions allowing ongoing investigation. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Bail Applications Nos. 11092/2023 and 11212/2023 in Crime No.1655/2023, Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.