High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeApplication allowed; bail granted with conditions.

Vikas Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2330 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; bail granted to the petitioner on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000 each, subject to conditions (appearance before IO on Saturdays for a specified period, no inducement or tampering with witnesses, no commission of offences while on bail, surrender of passport if any, provision of current addresses and mobile number, and court’s power to cancel or modify bail on violation).
Final Disposition
Application allowed; bail granted with conditions.

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

Case Synopsis & Summary

Vikas Mathew, the sole accused in Crime No.101/2024 of Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur, approached the Kerala High Court by Bail Application No. 2330 of 2024 under section 439 CrPC, seeking enlargement on bail in a case registered for offences under sections 506 and 420 IPC. The prosecution alleges the accused, with dishonest intent, induced the de facto complainant to secure an overseas employment visa and received Rs. 8,00,000, of which Rs. 3,28,000 was returned, with the visa arrangement not materializing. The petitioner was initially arrested in Crime No.203/2024 by Ernakulam Central Police Station and was formally arrested in the present crime; he has been in judicial custody since 24.01.2024. The defense contends innocence and false implication, asserting that the FIR would not attract the charged offences. He relies on a previous bail order in B.A. No.1958/2024 dated 20.03.2024 in a similar crime to support release. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and involvement in about 11 other similar cases across the state, arguing that bail could invite repetition of offences. After considering rival submissions and records, the court found continued detention unnecessary as the investigation is practically complete and recoveries have been effected, and granted bail on a Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties of equal amount, subject to standard conditions, including appearance, non-tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport, and the court’s power to cancel or modify bail, while citing Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. as guiding authority on recoveries while on bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 506 IPCSection 420 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2020 (1) KHC 663) - principle allowing police to pursue recoveries and conduct investigations even while bail is granted.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel argued total innocence and false implication, contending the FIR does not attract the alleged offences. He relied on a prior bail order in B.A. No.1958/2024 (dated 20.03.2024) in a related matter to argue that continued detention was unnecessary given the investigation was nearly complete and recoveries effected. He emphasized that the conditions for bail could ensure cooperation and prevent flight, citing the absence of active persecution while the case is at a near-final stage.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the accused’s criminal antecedents and involvement in about 11 other similar cases across the state. He argued that releasing the petitioner on bail could result in further offences and undermine the ongoing investigation, requesting strict conditions or denial of bail to protect public interest and ensure the integrity of the process.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited as governing authority for the IO’s power to pursue recoveries and continue investigation 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 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. 2330 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.101/2024 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` VIKAS MATHEW AGED 34 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 PRSECUTOR 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.2330 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.101/2024 of the Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 506 & 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.2330 OF 2024`** defacto complainant to secure an overseas employment visa. Consequently, the accused received Rs.8,00,000/from the de facto complainant. However, the accused failed to arrange the visa and only returned back an amount of Rs.3,28,000/-. 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.2330 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.2330 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.2330 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.2330 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.2330 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 ```