{"id":203614,"date":"2010-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010"},"modified":"2014-06-11T11:37:48","modified_gmt":"2014-06-11T06:07:48","slug":"nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Nibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Nibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nBail Appl..No. 1616 of 2010()\n\n\n1. NIBIN THOMAS, S\/O.K.T.THOMAS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :09\/04\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                         K.T.SANKARAN, J.\n            ------------------------------------------------------\n\n                    B.A. NOS.1616, 1792, 1799,\n\n                     1812 AND 1917 OF 2010\n            ------------------------------------------------------\n             Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010\n\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      These Bail Applications are filed under Section 439 of the<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure for bail by some of the accused in R.C.<\/p>\n
No.2(S)\/2010-CBI,TVPM (originally Crime No.197 of 2009 of<\/p>\n
Nedumudi Police Station). The details regarding Bail Application<\/p>\n
number, rank of the accused, name of the accused and date of<\/p>\n
arrest are shown below.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\nNumber of the    Rank of       Name of the accused            Date of\n\nBail             the                                          arrest\n\nApplication      accused\n\n\n1616 of 2010     A8            Nibin Thomas                   23-8-2009\n\n\n1792 of 2010     A6            Thomas Kuriakose               23-8-2009\n\n                               alias Binu\n\n<\/pre>\n
B.A. NOS.1616, 1792,1799,1812 & 1917 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                 :: 2 ::<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n1799 of 2010    A1, 3      Jayachandran alias      23-8-2009\n\n                and 5      Jayan,\n\n                           Sathar alias Anakkaran,\n\n                           Sujith\n1812 of 2010    A7, 9,10   Sunil alias Suni,       23-8-2009\n\n                and 11     Aneesh Kumar,\n\n                           Binoy Markose alias\n\n                           Binoy,\n\n                           Jain Jose alias Jain.\n1917 of 2010    A12, 14,   Ramesh alias Sony,      12-1-2010\n\n                and 17     Akash Sasidharan alias\n\n                           Rajesh,                 23-8-2009\n\n                           Shino Paul.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
       2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are<\/p>\n
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302, 120-B, 201 and 212 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.<\/p>\n
       3. The prosecution case is that Paul M. George, who is also<\/p>\n
known as Paul Muthoot, a young businessman aged 32 years was<\/p>\n
brutally murdered at about 0.15 hours on 22-8-2009 at a place two<\/p>\n
B.A. NOS.1616, 1792,1799,1812 & 1917 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                    :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
Kilometres      east   of  Pallathuruthy   bridge  in   Alapuzha     –<\/p>\n
Changanassery road. Paul M. George was brought dead at about<\/p>\n
00.50 hours on 22-8-2009 at the Medical College Hospital,<\/p>\n
Alappuzha by his driver Shibu Thomas.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Bail Application Nos.5832 and 6088 of 2009 filed before<\/p>\n
the High Court by some of the accused were dismissed as per the<\/p>\n
order dated 27th October 2009.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.    It is stated that after completing the investigation, final<\/p>\n
report was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the<\/p>\n
First Class, Ramankari on 19-11-2009.         The learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
passed a detailed order dated 8th December 2009 pointing out<\/p>\n
certain “irregularities” mentioned as items 1 to 15 in the order. The<\/p>\n
last two paragraphs of the said order read thus:<\/p>\n
              “On independently applying my mind to the facts<\/p>\n
      emerging from investigation I find that police has not<\/p>\n
      done its duty of investigating the case satisfactorily.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Investigation was not carried in respect of certain<\/p>\n
      aspects. I find some very relevant materials, on which,<\/p>\n
      investigators must pay their attention.        There are<\/p>\n
B.A. NOS.1616, 1792,1799,1812 & 1917 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                    :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n
      missing    links  and   areas    to  be   unearthed   and<\/p>\n
      investigated. Some facts which are relevant for arriving<\/p>\n
      truth had not been gone into. Investigation on these<\/p>\n
      areas are necessary for the free and fair trial and just<\/p>\n
      disposal of the case. Hence it is my duty to indicate<\/p>\n
      those materials to investigation team who shall make an<\/p>\n
      in depth study of those materials before filing a final<\/p>\n
      report.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             For the reasons stated above, the present report<\/p>\n
      filed by the police cannot be said to be complete. The<\/p>\n
      investigation is not satisfactory. Hence it is returned for<\/p>\n
      conducting investigation on all aspects and to file a<\/p>\n
      correct and complete report.       Investigation officer is<\/p>\n
      directed to retain an attested copy of the report in this<\/p>\n
      court.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6. Thereafter, Bail Applications were filed by some of the<\/p>\n
accused. Bail Application Nos.1816 of 2009 and 6890 of 2009 filed<\/p>\n
by Sunil alias Suni, Aneesh Kumar, Binoy Markose alias Binoy, Jain<\/p>\n
Jose alias Jain, Shino Paul and Akash Sasidharan alias Rajesh were<\/p>\n
dismissed by the order dated 11th January 2010. (Reported in 2010<\/p>\n
(1) KLT 339).\n<\/p>\n
B.A. NOS.1616, 1792,1799,1812 & 1917 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                     :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n
       7. The State filed W.P.(C) No. 37407 of 2009 challenging the<\/p>\n
order dated 8-12-2009 passed by the learned Magistrate. A Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court passed an interim order of stay of the order<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Magistrate. After the order of stay was<\/p>\n
granted, the investigating officer re-submitted the charge sheet<\/p>\n
before the Magistrate’s Court. W.P.(C) No.31031 of 2009 was filed<\/p>\n
by the father of Paul Muthoot, praying for entrusting the investigation<\/p>\n
of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Both these Writ<\/p>\n
Petitions were allowed by the Division Bench by the judgment dated<\/p>\n
21-1-2010. (Reported in 2010 (1) KLT 399).           The order dated<\/p>\n
19.11.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate was quashed. It was<\/p>\n
held thus:\n<\/p>\n
              “Writ Petition W.P.(C) No.31031 of 2009 is<\/p>\n
       allowed. Even though final report is filed by local police,<\/p>\n
       we direct them to hand over all the records to CBI<\/p>\n
       authority, which shall make independent investigation<\/p>\n
       and complete the same within six months from the date<\/p>\n
       of taking over the investigation.        The CBI shall<\/p>\n
       investigate the case from all angles, take assistance of<\/p>\n
       petitioner or his representative and submit final report to<\/p>\n
       jurisdictional Court. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       8. It is submitted by Sri.M.V.S. Namboodiri appearing for the<\/p>\n
B.A. NOS.1616, 1792,1799,1812 & 1917 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                      :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
C.B.I and Advocates Sri. Madhavankutty, Sri. T.P. Pradeep and Sri.<\/p>\n
S.Sanal Kumar, appearing for the petitioners that the C.B.I took over<\/p>\n
investigation on 28-1-2010. C.B.I. applied before the Court of the<\/p>\n
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam to get custody of Accused Nos.<\/p>\n
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, 24 and 25.     The application was opposed by the<\/p>\n
accused. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application for<\/p>\n
custody of the accused.        However, the C.B.I was permitted to<\/p>\n
interrogate the accused in jail premises for seven days from<\/p>\n
15.2.2010.     It is submitted that C.B.I. interrogated the accused<\/p>\n
persons as per the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.<\/p>\n
       9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since<\/p>\n
the charge sheet was returned by the learned Magistrate, it is to be<\/p>\n
taken that there is no charge sheet in the case and therefore the<\/p>\n
petitioners are entitled to `default bail’ under proviso (a) (i) to sub-<\/p>\n
section (2) of Section 167 Crl.P.C.       Cognizance was not taken by<\/p>\n
the learned Magistrate. The Division Bench directed the C.B.I. to file<\/p>\n
the final report before the jurisdictional court. The counsel submitted<\/p>\n
that, therefore, it has to be taken that no final report is filed in the<\/p>\n
case. If so, the petitioners are entitled to default bail, according to<\/p>\n
the counsel. The counsel also submitted that the local police had<\/p>\n
B.A. NOS.1616, 1792,1799,1812 & 1917 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                    :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n
arrayed 25 persons as accused. C.B.I. has added more persons in<\/p>\n
the array of accused. Another weapon was recovered by the C.B.I.<\/p>\n
as the weapon of offence. The counsel submitted that one of the<\/p>\n
grounds to oppose a bail application could be that the investigating<\/p>\n
agency wishes to hold custodial interrogation.         Now, the C.B.I.<\/p>\n
cannot have custody of the petitioners. Nothing new was brought<\/p>\n
out even after interrogation of the petitioners by the C.B.I. in jail. The<\/p>\n
counsel added that even according to the prosecution, only Kari<\/p>\n
Satheesan (Accused No.2) and Sathar (accused No.3) had weapons<\/p>\n
with them and the fatal injuries on Paul Muthoot were inflicted by<\/p>\n
Kari Satheesan.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       10. Shibu Thomas, the driver of Paul Muthoot, laid the First<\/p>\n
Information Statement before the Sub Inspector of Police,<\/p>\n
Nedumudi Police Station at 03.00 hours on 22-8-2009.               In the<\/p>\n
F.I.Statement, Shibu Thomas stated the following: He is working as<\/p>\n
driver at the Cardomom County Hotel, Thekkady, owned by Muthoot<\/p>\n
Group.    At present, he is working as driver at the office of the<\/p>\n
Muthoot Group in Kochi. Paul M. George was the Executive Director<\/p>\n
of Muthoot Group. On 21-8-2009, three friends of Paul M.George<\/p>\n
came in a Ford Endeavour car bearing registration No. KL 01 AS-<\/p>\n
B.A. NOS.1616, 1792,1799,1812 & 1917 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                   :: 8 ::\n<\/p>\n
8407 to meet Paul. Paul M. George and his friends proceeded to the<\/p>\n
resort of Muthoot Group at Mararikkulam in the Ford Endeavour car<\/p>\n
referred to above and the Scorpio car belonging to Paul M. George.<\/p>\n
After taking food and drinks, they proceeded to Pampa Villa Resort<\/p>\n
of Muthoot Group at Chambakkulam, at about 22.30 hours on<\/p>\n
21.8.2009. While proceeding from Mararikulam, Paul M. George<\/p>\n
drove the Ford Edeavour car and the driver Shibu Thomas drove the<\/p>\n
Scorpio car. Two of the friends of Paul M.George boarded the Ford<\/p>\n
Endeavour car while the other travelled in the Scorpio car. Paul<\/p>\n
directed Shibu Thomas to collect the keys of the rooms in Pampa<\/p>\n
Villa Resorts from the office of Muthoot Backwater Cruise at<\/p>\n
Pallathuruthy. As directed, Shibu Thomas went there to collect the<\/p>\n
keys. He was told that the keys were already taken to Pampa Villa<\/p>\n
Resort.   While proceeding from Pallathuruthy to Chambakkulam,<\/p>\n
Shibu Thomas saw the Ford Endeavour car driven by Paul M.<\/p>\n
George, parked on the side of the road at Ponga Gurumandiram<\/p>\n
Junction, at a distance of about 2 KMs east of Pallathuruthy Bridge.<\/p>\n
He saw about 10 to 15 persons near the car. He also saw a Tempo<\/p>\n
Traveller at the place, parked facing Alapuzha side. On seeing the<\/p>\n
car driven by Shibu Thomas, those persons hurriedly got into the<\/p>\n
Tempo Traveller and drove to Alapuzha side. Shibu Thomas saw<\/p>\n
B.A. NOS.1616, 1792,1799,1812 & 1917 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                    :: 9 ::\n<\/p>\n
Paul M. George lying there, drenched in blood. Paul M. George<\/p>\n
was taken in the Scorpio car to the Medical College Hospital,<\/p>\n
Alapuzha. One of the friends of Paul M. George, who was found<\/p>\n
seriously injured, was also taken in the Scorpio car. Two of the<\/p>\n
friends of Paul M. George came behind in the Ford Endeavour car.<\/p>\n
They overtook the Scorpio car.        However, instead of going to<\/p>\n
Medical College Hospital, the two friends of Paul drove the Ford<\/p>\n
Endeavour car to Thiruvananthapuram side. Shibu Thomas brought<\/p>\n
Paul M. George and the other injured to the Medical College<\/p>\n
Hospital. It was declared that Paul M. George was dead.<\/p>\n
      11. The other injured person who was brought to the hospital<\/p>\n
by Shibu Thomas was Praveen alias Manu.              According to the<\/p>\n
prosecution, investigation revealed that the three friends of Paul who<\/p>\n
came to see him were Om Praksh, Rajesh,            and Praveen alias<\/p>\n
Manu.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12. The statement of Praveen alias Manu was recorded under<\/p>\n
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate of the First Class II, Alappuzha.<\/p>\n
B.A. NOS.1616, 1792,1799,1812 & 1917 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                   :: 10 ::\n<\/p>\n
       13. The prosecution alleged (before the case was taken over<\/p>\n
by the C.B.I.) that while Paul was driving the Ford Endeavour car, it<\/p>\n
hit on a motor bike. Paul did not stop the car. A tempo traveller and<\/p>\n
other vehicles were parked on the side of the road at that place.<\/p>\n
After driving the car for about two kilometres, Paul stopped the car<\/p>\n
and inspected the car to find out the damage caused to the car as a<\/p>\n
result of the accident. At that time, several persons came there in a<\/p>\n
tempo traveller and questioned Paul as to why he did not stop the<\/p>\n
vehicle. They attacked Paul.      Satheeshkumar alias Kari Sathessh<\/p>\n
stabbed Paul several times. Sathar inflicted a cut injury on Praveen<\/p>\n
alias Manu with a sword. Praveen alias Manu ran away and fell into<\/p>\n
the paddy field.    Thereafter, Shibu Thomas came there in the<\/p>\n
Scorpio car and Paul and Praveen alias Manu were taken to the<\/p>\n
hospital.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       14. Sri. M.V.S. Namboodiri, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
C.B.I. submitted that the C.B.I. is looking into the case in all angles.<\/p>\n
The first accused Jayachandran and accused No. 6 Thomas<\/p>\n
Kuriakose alias Binu are involved in many cases. The only person<\/p>\n
who saw the incident is Praveen alias Manu. His statement under<\/p>\n
Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He is also an injured person. He<\/p>\n
B.A. NOS.1616, 1792,1799,1812 & 1917 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                   :: 11 ::\n<\/p>\n
is the most competent person to depose in court about the incident.<\/p>\n
The accused persons are hard core criminals. They are members of<\/p>\n
what is popularly called “quotation gang”. If the accused persons are<\/p>\n
released on bail, even the life of the only eye witness would be in<\/p>\n
danger.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      15.   A meticulous analysis of the facts of the case or the<\/p>\n
contentions of the parties is not required while considering the Bail<\/p>\n
Application filed by the accused persons. It is also not required or<\/p>\n
feasible to arrive at any conclusion on the merits of the case. Any<\/p>\n
finding made at this stage is likely to cause prejudice to either the<\/p>\n
prosecution or defence. Consideration and discussion of the facts<\/p>\n
are required only for the purpose of considering the question<\/p>\n
whether the accused persons should be granted bail.<\/p>\n
      16. The petitioners, except Ramesh alias Soni, are in judicial<\/p>\n
custody since 23-8-2009.      Ramesh alias Soni was arrested on<\/p>\n
12.1.2010. The C.B.I. took over investigation on 28-1-2010. Some<\/p>\n
of the accused persons were interrogated by the C.B.I. The prayer<\/p>\n
for custody of the accused was not granted by the Court. Therefore,<\/p>\n
continued detention of the petitioners is not required for the purpose<\/p>\n
B.A. NOS.1616, 1792,1799,1812 & 1917 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                      :: 12 ::\n<\/p>\n
of interrogating them. The next question to be considered is whether<\/p>\n
the petitioners would tamper with the evidence or intimidate the<\/p>\n
witnesses. I think sufficient stringent conditions while granting bail<\/p>\n
could be imposed to avert such an eventuality.             Keeping the<\/p>\n
petitioners in jail would not serve any purpose. Taking into account<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that bail<\/p>\n
can be granted to the petitioners on stringent conditions.<\/p>\n
       17.    The petitioners shall be released on bail on their<\/p>\n
executing bond for Rs.50,000\/- each with two solvent sureties for<\/p>\n
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court having jurisdiction,<\/p>\n
subject to the following conditions:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer on<\/p>\n
       every Monday and Thursday between 9 A.M. and 1 P.M., till<\/p>\n
       the final report is filed or until further orders;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for<\/p>\n
       interrogation as and when required;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
    c) The petitioners shall not enter into the limits of Alapuzha<\/p>\n
       District until further orders;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
B.A. NOS.1616, 1792,1799,1812 & 1917 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                    :: 13 ::\n<\/p>\n
  d) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior<\/p>\n
      permission from the Court having jurisdiction;<\/p>\n
  e) The petitioners shall surrender their Passports before the<\/p>\n
      Court having jurisdiction within one week; if any of the<\/p>\n
      petitioners does not hold an Indian Passport, he shall file an<\/p>\n
      affidavit to that effect before the learned Magistrate, within one<\/p>\n
      week.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  f) The petitioners shall not try to contact the witnesses, directly<\/p>\n
      or indirectly, or influence or intimidate them or tamper with the<\/p>\n
      evidence;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  g) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any<\/p>\n
      prejudicial activity while on bail;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  h) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above,<\/p>\n
      the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
      The Bail Applications are allowed as above.<\/p>\n
                                                   (K.T.SANKARAN)
\n                                                           Judge
\nahz\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Nibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Bail Appl..No. 1616 of 2010() 1. NIBIN THOMAS, S\/O.K.T.THOMAS, … Petitioner Vs 1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR For Respondent :SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN Dated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-11T06:07:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-11T06:07:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2312,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Nibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-11T06:07:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Nibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-11T06:07:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-11T06:07:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010"},"wordCount":2312,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010","name":"Nibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-11T06:07:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nibin-thomas-vs-central-bureau-of-investigations-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nibin Thomas vs Central Bureau Of Investigations on 9 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203614","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203614"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203614\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}