Kerala High Court
Aravind V. R vs State Of Kerala on 5 September, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2024:KER:67497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 14TH BHADRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 6256 OF 2024
CRIME NO.354/2024 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.6079
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
ARAVIND V. R.
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O RAJAN, VETTIKKAL VEEDU, ATTATHODE, PAMPA
TRIVENI P.O., PERUNADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA NOW
RESIDING AT NEAR CHERUPUZHAKKAL TEMPLE, MALAKKARA,
ARANMULA VILLAGE, PIN - 689532
BY ADVS.
LIJU.V.STEPHEN
INDU SUSAN JACOB
TAJ K. TOM
ABHIJITH U.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 6256 OF 2024 2
2024:KER:67497
Dated this the 5th day of September, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre- arrest bail.
2. The petitioner is the 1 st accused in Crime No. 354/2024 of the Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The crux of the prosecution is that; the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, introduced themselves as persons who can arrange jobs for aspirants in various establishments and accordingly received Rs.3,00,000/- from the de facto complainant. However, the accused did not arrange any job and refused to return the money. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. Liju V. Stephen, the learned BAIL APPL. NO. 6256 OF 2024 3 2024:KER:67497 counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Pushpalatha M.K., the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offences. In fact, the petitioner is a scapegoat in the said incident. There are other persons involved in the crime, who have taken away the money. The petitioner is hailing from an respectable background. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen without any criminal antecedents. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She drew the attention of this court to Annexure A2 order, wherein the petitioner was enlarged on bail in three crimes of the very same nature registered by the Aranmula Police Station on the same set of offences. She submitted that the petitioner is a BAIL APPL. NO. 6256 OF 2024 4 2024:KER:67497 person with criminal antecedents. There are incriminating material to substantiate that the petitioner has received money from the de facto complainant. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected for the full fledged investigation of the crime. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.
6. In Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar [2024 KHC OnLine 6137] the Honourable Supreme Court, after referring to all the earlier decisions on the point, has observed in the following lines:
"8. It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under S.438, CrPC is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. (See the decision of this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J.Mannan & Anr., 2010 (1) SCC 679).
xxx xxx xxx
24.We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it BAIL APPL. NO. 6256 OF 2024 5 2024:KER:67497 was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. xxx xxx"
7.In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another [(2012) 4 SCC 379], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, an order of pre-arrest bail being an extra ordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Courts has to be properly exercised, after proper application of mind, to decide whether it is a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. The court has to be prima facie satisfied that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime and his liberty is being misused.
8. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the BAIL APPL. NO. 6256 OF 2024 6 2024:KER:67497 rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, there are prima facie materials to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime, that the petitioner has criminal antecedents as reflected in Annexure A2 order, that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out any valid ground to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.438 of the Code. The application is meritless and is only to be dismissed.
Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE rmm/5/9/2024