Binoy Mathew vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 07, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1446206

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1446206
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Mar 07, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./750/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Binoy Mathew

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 506(i), 324, 323, 328, 427 & 120 b r/w section 149 of the indian penal code .3. the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners alongwith other accused in the case attacked the de facto complainant and his friend by using an iron rod. it is also alleged that a pepper spray was used on the face of the de facto complainant and thereby, they committed the offences alleged against them.4. the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that theallegations against the petitioners are raised on the basis of political rivalry. it is submitted that the petitioners had no occasion to attack the de facto complainant or his friend. it is further submitted that practically, no injuries were caused to the de facto complainant and his friend. it is submitted that the only non bailable offence is that under section 328 of the ipc, which is, at ..3.. any rate, not attracted, as an offece under section 328 of the ipc is attracted only if any kind of poison or intoxicating substance etc., was used. it is submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted to be true, the allegation in this case is that a pepper spray was used, which cannot, at any rate, be termed to be a poison or an intoxicating substance or an unwholesome drug.5. the learned public prosecutor vehemently opposes grant of bail. itis submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are serious. it is further submitted that though no serious injuries have been reported against the de facto complainant or his friend, the fact that they were attacked in the manner indicated shows that the allegations are serious. it is also pointed out that each of the petitioners is involved in two other cases and as such, they have criminal antecedents.6. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, primafacie, i am of the view that the provisions of section 328 of the ipc may not be attracted. since the offence under section 328 of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 750 OF 2022 CRIME NO.2378/2021 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM PETITIONERS/3RD & 5TH ACCUSED: 1 BINOY MATHEW, AGED 27 YEARS, SON OF BABU, PARUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANGANAM P O, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686018 2 ABIN MATHEW, AGED 24 YEARS, SON OF ANIL P M, PARUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANGANAM P O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686018 BY ADV V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OTHER PRESENT: SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 3 & 5 in Crime No. 2378 of 2021 of

Kottayam East Police Station, Kottayam District, which was registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 506(i), 324, 323, 328, 427 & 120 B r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners along

with other accused in the case attacked the de facto complainant and his friend by using an iron rod. It is also alleged that a pepper spray was used on the face of the de facto complainant and thereby, they committed the offences alleged against them.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

allegations against the petitioners are raised on the basis of political rivalry. It is submitted that the petitioners had no occasion to attack the de facto complainant or his friend. It is further submitted that practically, no injuries were caused to the de facto complainant and his friend. It is submitted that the only non bailable offence is that under Section 328 of the IPC, which is, at ..3.. any rate, not attracted, as an offece under Section 328 of the IPC is attracted only if any kind of poison or intoxicating substance etc., was used. It is submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted to be true, the allegation in this case is that a pepper spray was used, which cannot, at any rate, be termed to be a poison or an intoxicating substance or an unwholesome drug.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes grant of bail. It

is submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are serious. It is further submitted that though no serious injuries have been reported against the de facto complainant or his friend, the fact that they were attacked in the manner indicated shows that the allegations are serious. It is also pointed out that each of the petitioners is involved in two other cases and as such, they have criminal antecedents.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, prima

facie, I am of the view that the provisions of Section 328 of the IPC may not be attracted. Since the offence under Section 328 of the IPC is the only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. In the result, this application is allowed and it is directed that the ..4.. petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 2378 of 2021 of Kottayam East Police Station, Kottayam District, subject to the following conditions:

(a) Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(b) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and

appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 2378 of 2021 of Kottayam East Police Station, Kottayam District, at 10 am on 16.03.2022 and thereafter, whenever called upon to do so;

investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant or any witness in Crime No. 2378 of 2021 of Kottayam East Police Station, Kottayam District; (d)Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, the investigating ..5.. officer in Crime No. 2378 of 2021 of Kottayam East Police Station, Kottayam District, may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail. Any observation contained in this order is only for the purpose of considering the entitlement of the petitioners for bail and shall not be treated as findings of this Court on any point.

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE bka/07.03.2022

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Binoy Mathew vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.