Jinu Mathew v. State of Kerala

ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-D

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.19681/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-07-2026 in BA No. 3509/2026 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam]

JINU MATHEW Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION)

Date : 30-10-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshad V. Hameed- 2127, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Prasun S., Adv. Mr. Mahabir Singh, Adv. Mr. Praveen Bhatia, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aljo K. Joseph- 2529, AOR Ms. Meenakshi, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

[NyayVidhan note: this order is recorded in the record of proceedings; there is no separate signed order. Paragraphs 1-7 carry the Court's numbers. The list of counsel is given on one line for each side. The digital-signature block and page numbers are left out. The order's own wording is kept as printed.]

[Source: Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 30 October 2026.]

O R D E R

1. The petitioner has been denied anticipatory bail by the High Court in connection with FIR No. 1877/2025, registered at PS North Paravur, Ernakulam Rural, Kerala, for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(1) and 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

2. The complainant alleges that petitioner allegedly induced the complainant to believe that an investment of Rs. 1 lakh in the R.P.Radium Power Business would yield a profit of Rs.1 Crore. On that representation, the accused obtained a total of Rs. 20 lakhs from the complainant in several installments between August 2021 and September 2024. When the complainant demanded repayment, the accused abused her in obscene language and threatened to kill her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned Order on various grounds, including that bank statement show a pattern of frequent two-way transactions between the complainant and the accused over several years thus there exists a commercial relationship between the parties than a criminal conspiracy. The accused had submitted himself for interrogation and produced all documents pertaining to the transactions.

4. On a prima facie consideration of the material on record, we are of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. Accordingly, we direct that, in the event of his arrest in connection with the offences referred to above, he shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the Investigating Officer (for short, “I.O.”) may deem fit to impose and subject further to his continued cooperation in the investigation.

5. Upon being released on bail by the I.O., the petitioner shall, pursuant to any direction issued by the I.O. or summons issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, North Paravur, Ernakulam (the jurisdictional court), appear before the jurisdictional court, furnish bail bonds, and ensure due appearance during the trial.

6. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(VISHAL ANAND) DEPUTY REGISTRAR
(POOJA SHARMA) COURT MASTER (NSH)