Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted

Vikas Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2328 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. DIAS
Judgment Date
2024-03-26
Court Decision / Holding
The application is allowed. The petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions (i)-(viii) including weekly appearance before the Investigating Officer for one month or till final report, non-tampering with witnesses, not committing any offence while on bail, surrender of passport if any, providing current and permanent addresses and mobile number, and conditions for cancellation/modification of bail for violations. The court notes the investigative progress and relies on principles including continuing investigation during bail as cited from Sushila Aggarwal.
Final Disposition
Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Vikas Mathew

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V. Visal Ajayan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • C.S. Hrithwik (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Vikas Mathew, the sole accused in Crime No.159/2024 of Velikulangara Police Station, Thrissur, approaches this High Court bail application under Section 439 CrPC. He was arrested initially on 24.01.2024 in Crime No.203/2024 by Ernakulam Central Police Station and later formally arrested in the present case. The prosecution case alleges that, with dishonest intent, he induced the de facto complainant to secure an overseas employment visa and, as consideration, received Rs.8,65,000, returning only Rs.3,85,000, thereby committing offences under IPC Section 420. The applicant contends innocence and asserts that the FIR does not attract the offences charged, arguing false implication. He also notes that in BA No.1958/2024 the court had already enlarged him on bail in a similar crime, and that investigation is substantially complete with recoveries effected. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the accused’s criminal antecedents and involvement in 11 other cases in different police stations, contending that release could lead to further offences. After hearing counsel and assessing the material on record, the learned Judge concluded that further detention is unnecessary, given the duration of custody since 24.01.2024, near completion of investigation, and material recoveries. The bail order grants release on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to typical conditions including reporting, avoidance of tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport, address disclosure, and potential cancellation for violation. The court also notes the principle from Sushila Aggarwal regarding continuing investigation during bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of CrPC, 1973Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Continuance of investigation and the possibility of recoveries while the accused is on bail (as laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that he is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated. A reading of the First Information Report would reveal that the offences alleged under the IPC are not attracted. He notes that in BA No.1958/2024 this Court had already enlarged him on bail in a similar crime, and that he has remained in custody since 24.01.2024 with the investigation virtually complete and recoveries effected. Therefore, further detention is unnecessary, and bail should be granted subject to appropriate conditions, including appearance before the IO and compliance with court directions.

Contentions of Respondents

The State submits that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is involved in 11 other cases across the State. If released on bail, there is a real likelihood of reoffending. The prosecution requests dismissal of the bail application or imposition of stricter conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and to prevent tampering with witnesses.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited to justify that investigation and potential recoveries may proceed even while the accused is on bail, guiding the imposition and enforcement of bail conditions.

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 Vikas 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 ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2328 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.159/2024 OF VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ``` ``` VIKAS MATHEW AGED 35 YEARS S/O PATHROSE, ETTICKAL HOUSE, ANIKKADU, KOTTAYAM, ARUVIKUZHI, PIN - 686503 ``` ## **`BY ADV V.VISAL AJAYAN`** ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B. A.NO.2328 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` **Dated this the 26[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in crime No.159/2024 of the Vellikulangara Police Station, Thrissur, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was originally arrested on 24.01.2024 in Crime No.203/2024 by the Ernakulam Central Police Station. Subsequently, the petitioner’s formal arrest was recorded in the present crime. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused with a dishonest intention had assured the ``` 3 ``` ## **`B. A.NO.2328 OF 2024`** defacto complainant to secure an overseas employment visa. Consequently, the accused received Rs.8,65,000/from the de facto complainant. However, the accused failed to arrange the visa and only returned back an amount of Rs.3,85,000/-. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.V.Visal Ajayan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 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. A reading of the First Information Report would substantiate that the ``` 4 ``` ## **`B. A.NO.2328 OF 2024`** offences will not be attracted. Notwithstanding the other contentions, this Court by the order in B.A.No.1958/2024 dated 20.3.2024 has already enlarged the petitioner on bail in a similar crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.01.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. The petitioner is involved in 11 other cases of similar nature in different police stations in the State. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the ``` B. A.NO.2328 OF 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` application may be dismissed. 6. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.01.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 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 ``` 6 ``` ## **`B. A.NO.2328 OF 2024`** 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 one month 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 ``` B. A.NO.2328 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has already surrendered his passport as directed by this Court in B.A. No.1958/2024, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - (v) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; - (vi) 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. - (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. ``` B. A.NO.2328 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` (viii) 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** ``` rmm/26/3/2024 ```