MATHEW THOMAS v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 09 Jan 2009
- Bench
- K HEMA
Outcome
Dismissed
The Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 188(3)(4), 379, 447, 506(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and no special circumstance is made out to invoke the provision under Section438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner must be required for recovery of the stolen article…
Judgment
K.HEMA, J==================B.A.No. 7938 of 2008==================Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009
O R D E RThe petition is for anticipatory bail.
The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 379, 506(1), 188(3)(4) IPC According to the prosecution, petitioner along with two others trespassed into the property belonging to thedefacto complainant and removed coconut shell which was kept for collecting latex illegally and this is in violation of the order passed by the Civil Court restraining the petitioner from trespassing into the property.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Petitioner is abusiness man and if there is any violation of injunction, the party could have moved to the Civil Court. But, no such petition is filed before the Civil Court. The police is harassing by being informed by the defacto complainant. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any conditions. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted.
Learned public prosecutor submitted that in the nature B.A.No. 7938 of 2008-2-of allegations made, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail.
Operative part
On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and no special circumstance is made out to invoke the provision under Section438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner must be required for recovery of the stolen article, for which the interrogation must be required. The crime is registered as early as on9.12.2008. Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay and whether he surrenders or not, the police is at liberty to arrest the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. The Petition is dismissed.K.HEMA, JUDGErhs
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 188(3)(4), 379, 447, 506(1); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 09 Jan 2009. The bench was K HEMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.