High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-06-03Bail granted; petitioner released on bail with ...

Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 4584 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-06-03
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed; the petitioner Mathew is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties for the same amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for two months or until the final report is laid; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport if any; (v) consequence of violation including cancellation of bail; (vi) modifications of bail conditions may be sought; and the IO may continue investigations and recoveries as permissible under law, citing Sushila Aggarwal; Annexures 1 and 2 are noted.
Final Disposition: Bail granted; petitioner released on bail with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mathew, aged 54 years, s/o Kuriaose Mathew, residing at Manakalathil House, Velikulambu, Kizhaakkencherry, Alathur, Palakkad, Kerala

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Seetha S. (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under section 439 CrPC filed by the sole accused in Crime No.61/2020 of the Alathur Excise Circle Office, Palakkad, challenging the continuing investigation in respect of an offence under section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act (Act 1 of 1077). The petitioner, Mathew, who had surrendered on 29 May 2024, faces allegations based on a 18 May 2020 incident wherein 45 litres of wash were seized from his residence following a search; he reportedly fled the scene when excise officials arrived. Counsel for the petitioner argued innocence and false implication, with no material establishing his complicity; the accused had been interrogated in 2020, but Covid-related restrictions delayed further appearances. The petitioner relied on a prior direction in Biju S. Praveen v. State of Kerala to have the bail application considered in light of law and with no contumacious conduct. The prosecution contended that the petitioner’s absconding status warranted denial of bail even after final report and completion of investigation. The High Court, after careful consideration, found the investigation complete and the final report laid, with no contumacious conduct established. It held that further detention was unnecessary and granted bail on conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties for equal amount; periodic appearance before the IO; prohibition on tampering with witnesses or committing offences; surrender of passport; and a provision for cancellation or modification of bail as per law. The court observed that investigation and recoveries may continue under the guidance of Sushila Aggarwal, and cited Annexures 1 and 2 in support.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1 of 1077

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Non-contumacious conduct doctrine
Bail can be granted when the investigation is complete and final report is filed
Law laid down in Biju S. Praveen v. State of Kerala (2007 (2) KLT 280) guiding consideration of bail
Investigating officer may continue to investigate and effect recoveries even while bail is in force, as reflected in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2020 (1) KHC 663)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Mathew is innocent and falsely implicated; there is no material establishing his complicity. He submits that the 2020 interrogation was hindered by Covid restrictions and the petitioner had promptly surrendered in 2024 following a direction to dispose of the bail application in accordance with law, highlighting the absence of contumacious conduct. He relies on the decision in Biju S. Praveen to urge consideration of bail rather than prolonged detention.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing that the petitioner was absconding and that the final report, though filed, does not obligate grant of bail. She contends that release on bail could jeopardize ongoing investigations and recovery efforts.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Biju S. Praveen v. State of Kerala and another	2007 (2) KLT 280	Positive	Court references the decision to guide the bail assessment and to emphasize that bail should be considered in light of non-contumacious conduct.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Used to justify that the Investigating Officer may continue to investigate and effect recoveries even while bail is in force.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Mathew 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.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4584 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.61/2020 OF Alathur Excise Circle Office, Palakkad AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.05.2024 IN CP NO.85 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,ALATHUR PETITIONER/S:** **MATHEW AGED 54 YEARS S/O.KURIAKOSE MATHEW, MANAKALATHIL HOUSE, VELLIKULAMBU, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678508** ## **BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR PP SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4584 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.61/2020 of the Alathur Excise Circle Office, Palakkad (L.P.No.9/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alathur), registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sections 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act 1 of 1077. The petitioner had surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 29.05.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution allegation is that: on 18.05.2020, at around 17.45 hours, the Detecting Officer conducted a search in the house of the accused and seized 45 liters of wash. On seeing the Excise party, the accused ran away from the spot. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri.V.A.Johnson, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. BAIL APPL. NO. 4584 OF 2024 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to show the petitioner's complicity in the case. In fact, the petitioner was interrogated by the Detecting Officer in 2020 itself. However, since it was Covid pandemic period, the petitioner was informed that he would be served with a notice for his further appearance before the Investigating Officer. The petitioner was under the bonafide belief that his presence was not required. It was in 2024, that the Investigating Officer attempted to arrest the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner approached this Court and filed Crl.M.C.No.4068/2024. By Annexure -1 order, this Court, taking note of the law laid down in **Biju S. Praveen vs. State of Kerala and another** [2007 (2) KLT 280], directed the jurisdictional court to consider and dispose of the petitioner's bail application in accordance with law, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner does not have contumacious BAIL APPL. NO. 4584 OF 2024 4 conduct. It was pursuant to the said order the petitioner surrendered before the jurisdictional Magistrate. However, by Annexure-2 order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application. The investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Therefore, there is no necessity for the petitioner to be kept in judicial custody, since the investigation is complete. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and has no contumacious conduct. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that since the petitioner was absconding, the Investigating Officer had to file an absconding final report before the jurisdictional court. It is later when the petitioner was traced out, the Investigating Officer attempted to arrest the petitioner. Then he filed an application before this Court and Annexure-1 order was passed. Merely because the final report has been laid, the petitioner is not entitled to be BAIL APPL. NO. 4584 OF 2024 5 released on bail. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that 45 litres of wash was seized from his house. On seeing the Excise party, the petitioner fled from the scene. The fact remains that, by Annexure -1 order, this Court had directed the learned Magistrate to consider the petitioner's application keeping in mind the law laid down in **Biju S. Praveen's** case. However, by Annexure2 order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petitioner's application. 7. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially considering the observations made by this Court in Annexure-1 order, that the investigation in the case is complete, the final report has been laid and that recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. BAIL APPL. NO. 4584 OF 2024 6 In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; - (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; - (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of BAIL APPL. NO. 4584 OF 2024 7 the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - (v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. - (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below. - (vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rkc/03.06.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 4584 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4584/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.4068/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 10.05.2024** **Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2024 IN CRL.M.P.NO.1913 OF 2024 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, ALATHUR**