Kerala High Court
Mr.Praveen K.P. @ Praveen Rana vs The State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 3RD BHADRA, 1945
WP(CRL.) NO. 230 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
PRAVEEN K.P. @ PRAVEEN RANA,
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.PUSHKARAN,
KAIPPILLY HOUSE,
VELUTHUR,
THRISSUR - 680 012.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.R.GITHESH
SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN
SRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
STATE CRIME BRANCH,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CRIME BRANCH,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
W.P.(Crl.) No.230 & 381/23 -:2:-
5 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CRIME BRANCH EOW, THRISSUR UNIT,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.08.2023, ALONG WITH WP(Crl.)No.381/2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.) No.230 & 381/23 -:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 3RD BHADRA, 1945
WP(CRL.) NO. 381 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
MR.PRAVEEN K.P. @ PRAVEEN RANA,
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.K.K.PUSHKARAN,
KAIPPILLY HOUSE,
VELUTHUR, THRISSUR,
NOW AT DISTRICT JAIL,
THRISSUR, PIN - 682012
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.R.GITHESH
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN
SRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031
3 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
THRISSUR CITY
THRISSUR, PIN - 680022
W.P.(Crl.) No.230 & 381/23 -:4:-
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
THRISSUR RURAL,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680501
5 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
PALAKKAD CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
6 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KANNUR, CIVIL STATION,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.08.2023, ALONG WITH WP(Crl.)No.230/2023,
THE COURT ON 25.08.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.) No.230 & 381/23 -:5:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.) Nos.230 & 381 of 2023
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2023
JUDGMENT
These two writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner seeking
reliefs relating to crimes registered against him in various police stations.
Since the issue raised in these writ petitions are inter-connected and they
were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
2. In W.P.(Crl.) No.230 of 2023, petitioner seeks for a direction to
club together all the crimes registered against him and also to transfer all
the cases to the Designated Court under the BUDS Act. In W.P.(Crl.)
No.381 of 2023, petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to be
enlarged on bail in all cases registered against him as detailed in the
document produced in the writ petition in view of the decision in Abhishek
Singh Chauhan v. Union of India and Others (2022 SCC OnLine SC
1936) by treating the first crime registered against him as the principal
FIR. In the latter writ petition, the reliefs sought also include a declaration
that judicial custody in all the crimes against the petitioner be reckoned
from 13.01.2023, the date of remand in the first case registered against
him.
3. On 04.01.2023, Crime No.42 of 2023 of Thrissur East Police
Station, alleging offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioner. Soon,
several other crimes were also registered against him. He was arrested
on 11.01.2023, and since then, he remains in judicial custody.
4. Petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director of an entity by
the name M/s. Safe Strong Business Consultancy Private Limited. In
Crime No.42 of 2023, it was alleged that petitioner promised to pay a
franchisee stipend every month if a deposit is made and return the deposit
after five years or to return a bulk amount along with the deposit after the
term and failed to pay any amount as promised. Writ petition refers to 115
crimes registered against him before various police stations at Thrissur,
Palakkad, Kannur, Kottayam, Wayanad and Pathanamthitta.
5. Petitioner contended that the allegations against him in all the
crimes are the same and that investigation of those crimes have been
transferred to the State Crime Branch as per an order dated 19.01.2023.
Petitioner contends that all those crimes registered against him ought to
have been clubbed together and re-registered as a single crime.
Petitioner also contended that the Crime Branch had added offences
under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short
'the BUDS Act') and transferred the cases to the Designated Court - III
(Additional Sessions Court), Thrissur. Petitioner further alleges that the
registration of a series of crimes on the basis of the same transaction and
cause of action is illegal as they need to register only one FIR in
connection with the offence, and hence all the FIRs ought to be clubbed
together as a single offence. The reliefs, as mentioned earlier, are claimed
on the basis of the aforesaid facts.
6. Petitioner alleged that after the news of registration of the first
crime became known, there was a scramble to lodge crimes at different
police stations. As on the date of filing of the said writ petition, 186 crimes
have been registered. Though petitioner has been in custody since
13.01.2023, arrest has been recorded only in a limited number of cases.
Petitioner alleges that the conduct of the Investigating Officer in omitting to
record the arrest is arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights of the
petitioner.
7. An example has been cited in respect of Crime Nos.61 of 2023
and 79 of 2023 of Vadanappally Police Station wherein, petitioner's bail
applications were dismissed, stating that the accused has not been
arrested. Since arrest has not been recorded in 142 cases, he alleges that
he is not able to get bail or even attempt to get regular bail. Thus,
petitioner prays to be enlarged on bail in all the cases registered against
him.
8. Counter affidavits have been filed in both writ petitions. The
request for clubbing of various FIRs is objected to for several reasons. The
respondents pleaded that after the case was transferred to the Crime
Branch, a Special Investigation Team was constituted. A total of 263
crimes were registered as on the date of filing of the counter affidavit in
W.P.(C) No.381 of 2023. The respondents also plead that investigations
into all the cases are progressing, and the provisions of the BUDS Act
have also been incorporated. Out of 263 cases registered against the
petitioner, arrest has been recorded only in 185 cases and in the
remaining 78 cases recently transferred to the Crime Branch, arrest has
not been recorded.
9. I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel
instructed by Sri.Thomas P.Kuruvila, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Sri.P.Narayanan, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the
respondents.
10. The points that arise for consideration are (i) whether all the
FIRs registered against the petitioner can be clubbed together (ii) whether
a comprehensive bail can be directed to be granted in all cases registered
against the petitioner, deeming his date of arrest as 13.01.2023 and (iii)
any other reliefs.
(i) Whether all the FIRs registered against the petitioner can be
clubbed together?
11. In the instant case, 283 complaints are filed at different locations
at different police stations in the State, all relating to separate and
independent transactions. The nature of inducement, the quantum of the
deposit, the place where the inducement was offered are all distinct, apart
from the period for which the deposits were offered. The complainants are
also different, and even the provisions of law applicable are also different
in a few of the crimes. The complainants are also not parties to the writ
petition. Therefore it would be prejudicial to the numerous
depositors/complainants to club all those FIRs as a single offence solely
for the convenience of the accused or that of the agency.
12. In Abhishek Singh Chauhan's case (supra), the Supreme
Court directed clubbing all the FIRs registered in different States, treating
the subsequently registered FIRs as statements under section 161 of
Cr.P.C. The court also observed that if the accused has been granted bail
in connection with the principal FIR, the bail so granted must enure in his
favour until the court of competent jurisdiction cancels it, owing to
supervening circumstances. The ratio of the said decision was sought to
be applied to the crimes against the petitioner to club all the FIRs.
13. However, in a decision of a coordinate Bench of the Supreme
Court in Anubhav Mittal and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 980), after noticing that the cheating and
connected offences in the said case had occurred at different parts of the
country and each victim having a right to prosecute his complaint through
the law enforcement agency, held that the accused cannot demand
conduct of investigation only with respect to a particular offence. It was
also observed that the accused, who had mobilized funds from different
parts of the country, could not plead his inconvenience of having to defend
the case in multiple jurisdictions.
14. Thus, two divergent judgments of coordinate Benches
governing the issue were brought to the notice of this Court.
15. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Narendrajith Singh Sahani and Another v. Union of
India and Others [(2002) 2 SCC 210], while considering a similar issue it
was observed as follows: "As regards the issue of a single-offence, we are
afraid that the fact situation of the matters under consideration would not permit
to lend any credence to such a submission. Each individual deposit agreement
shall have to be treated as separate and individual transaction brought about by
the allurement of the financial companies, since the parties are different, the
amount of deposit is different as also the period for which the deposit was
effected. It has all the characteristics of independent transactions and we do not
see any compelling reason to hold it otherwise. The plea as raised also cannot
have our concurrence."
16. The decision in Abhishek Singh Chauhan's case (supra) does
not lay down any principle of law that, in all circumstances, the different
FIR's can be clubbed together. Further, most of the crimes in the said
decision had culminated in final reports, and many of the cases were
pending in court, too. On the other hand, the judgment in Anubhav
Mittal's case (supra) strikes a different note. After holding that the
convenience of the accused alone cannot be weighed by the court for
deciding a proceeding of this nature, it was observed in the latter decision
that "The alleged cheating and connected offences have occurred at different
parts of the country and each victim under the existing provisions of law has a
right to prosecute his complaints against the petitioners through the law
enforcement agency under normal circumstances having power to conduct
investigation in the particular territory where complaint is lodged. It is apparent
that the petitioners had mobilised funds from different parts of the country and
now, on alleged default, cannot plead their inconvenience of having to defend
their cases in multiple jurisdictions."
17. In Abhishek Singh Chauhan's case (supra), no principle of
law has been declared that in every case, clubbing of FIRs ought to be
done. The three Judge's Bench in Narendrajith Singh Sahani's case
(supra) and two Judge's Bench in Anubhav Mittal's case (supra) have as
pointed out earlier, struck a different note. In the latter two cases, the fact
situations are also similar as in the present case.
18. Apart from the above, law does not contemplate such a
clubbing of FIRs and hence, such a direction, that too, at this stage of the
investigation, is not called for. In view of the above discussion, the relief for
clubbing of FIRs is declined.
(ii) Whether a comprehensive bail can be directed to be granted in all
cases registered against the petitioner, deeming his date of arrest as
13.01.2023?
19. The right of an accused to speedy trial, flowing from Article 21
encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry,
trial, appeal, revision and retrial. However, the said right cannot be
extended to persons who complain of infraction of Article 21 on the ground
that he is unable to walk out of jail due to the repeated number of criminal
cases being registered against him. A blanket or a comprehensive order
granting bail in all cases registered and to be registered in the future,
deeming his date of arrest as 13.01.2023, is not a methodology
contemplated under law. Hence, the prayer for a comprehensive bail is
also declined.
(iii) Any other reliefs.
20. Since multiple crimes are registered, petitioner has alleged that
there is an attempt to deny his liberty by avoiding arrest in many cases for
long periods. Petitioner also alleged that once bail is granted in one crime,
the police records his arrest in another crime registered much earlier and
repeats this process, resulting in denying the possibility of his release on
bail at any time in the near future.
21. The circumstances of the case reveal that the allegation noted in
the preceding paragraph is credible. Despite the petitioner remaining in
custody continuously from 13.01.2023, his arrest has not been recorded
even in those cases that were registered more than a month ago. The
inconvenience of the agency to record arrest cannot be an acceptable
reason to deny the liberty of an individual. A purposeful attempt to deny
the liberty of the petitioner by delaying the recording of his arrest can
amount to an unfair investigation violating Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
22. The Constitution mandates, under Article 21, that the procedure
in a criminal investigation and trial must be fair, just and reasonable and
not fanciful or oppressive. The assurance of a fair trial is the imperious
command springing from Article 21. The said Constitutional provision
pervades over every provision of law in our country. The Supreme Court
had in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others v. State of Gujarat and
Another, [(2019) 17 SCC 1] observed that 'the hovering omnipresence of
Article 21 over every provision of Cr.P.C cannot be lost sight of'. Thus, the
interpretation of the provisions of Cr.P.C must of necessity, ensure
adherence to Article 21, in both letter and spirit. Similarly, In Vinay Tyagi
v. Irshad alias Deepak and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 762], the Court held
that an accused has a right to have a just and fair investigation, apart from
trial, and it is the responsibility and duty of the court to ensure that the
investigation is fair and does not hamper the freedom of an individual.
23. If the accused in a case is required by the investigating officer
to be arrested, delaying the recording of arrest under one pretext or the
other, cannot be allowed, in cases where the accused is already in
custody for other crimes. Necessary steps will have to be initiated with
promptitude to question the accused and to arrest him if required. An
arrest can be recorded after obtaining a production warrant or other
measures as contemplated under law. The delay in recording the arrest,
despite the knowledge that the accused is already in custody, intrudes on
his rights. Delay in recording arrest for a long period of time can be
assumed to be a conscious attempt to infract the right to liberty.
24. In the statement filed on 3-08-2023, the Investigating Officer
mentioned that out of 263 cases being investigated by the Crime Branch
against the petitioner, arrest has been recorded only in 185 cases. Of the
78 cases in which arrest has not been recorded, only a handful of them
were registered in the month of July 2023, and the rest were registered as
early as in June 2023. The inconvenience of the investigating agency is
projected as one of the reasons for the delay in recording arrest. If the
arrest is recorded properly, the petitioner would have the liberty to apply
for bail. If a delay in recording the arrest occurs, the incarceration of the
petitioner can continue for long. Misuse of the powers of arrest is possible
in such an instance.
25. Therefore, it is imperative that the investigating agency proceeds
to record the arrest of the petitioner immediately on being aware of the fact
that he is already in custody, or at least within a reasonable time of
registration of the crime. Delayed recording of arrest can be a calculated
method for the continued incarceration of an accused in certain situations.
This Court reminds itself that long periods of incarceration can amount to
conviction without punishment, which is the antithesis of due procedure
and infracts the liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
26. The power of arrest cannot be misused by the police, and the
liberty of an individual, which is the most cherished concept, has to be
assiduously protected. Two decisions of significance are to referred to at
this juncture. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [(2014) 8
SCC 273], the Supreme Court had held that in all cases where the
offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
upto seven years, the police officers shall not arrest the accused
unneccessarily and detention shall not be authorised mechanically. A
police officer, before arrest, has to be first satisfied that the person had
committed the offence and that the arrest is necessary for one or more of
the purposes envisaged by section 41(1)(a) to (e) of CrPC. Thus, he has
to be satisfied that the arrest is necessary to prevent the commission of
any further offence, or for a proper investigation, or to prevent the
disappearance of or tampering with the evidence, or to prevent attempts to
dissuade witnesses from giving evidence or from disclosing facts to the
Court or to the Police Officer; or his presence in the court, whenever
required, cannot be ensured. The Police Officer effecting the arrest has to
state the specific reasons in writing while making the arrest, which must be
verified by the Magistrate to ensure satisfaction of the conditions
precedent for such an arrest. The Supreme Court had observed that
authorising detention beyond 24 hours is a solemn function and ought not
to be done in a routine, casual and cavalier manner as is often done.
27. Similarly, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Centrl Bureau of
Investigation and Another [(2022) 10 SCC 51], the Court had held that
the investigating officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of
sections 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C and non-compliance would entitle the
accused to bail.
28. The above decisions provide a balance between the needs of
the investigating agency and the rights of the individual. In the instant
case, petitioner has already been in custody for the last more than seven
months, his passport has already been surrendered as admitted by the
Prosecutor, all his properties have already been attached under the BUDS
Act, the documents in his possession and over which he had dominion
have already been seized. Though the crimes are all different, the
allegations are generally similar in nature. Thus, the requirements of
section 41 of Cr.P.C, for future crimes with allegations of a similar nature
are mostly satisfied. Hence, the benefit of section 41A Cr.P.C ought to be
accorded to the petitioner. Of course, in cases where the allegations are
different or if the investigating officer requires the arrest of the petitioner for
specific reasons in a particular case, he must have the liberty to do so,
provided the conditions laid down in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar
Antil are scrupulously complied with.
29. At the same time, the power of arrest vested with the
investigating agency in appropriate cases cannot be trenched upon. A
balance will have to be struck between the principles of liberty and the
power of arrest as contemplated under the Cr.P.C. Therefore, in cases
where the allegations are different from the crimes already registered or if
the investigating officer requires the arrest of the petitioner for specific
reasons in a particular case, he must have the liberty to do so, provided
the conditions laid down in Arnesh Kumar and Satinder Kumar Antil are
scrupulously complied with.
30. Thus, to balance the rights of the petitioner as well as that of the
investigating agency and the complainants, certain directions are required
to be issued regarding the arrest of the petitioner. Those directions are
specified in the concluding paragraph as (iii) to (v) and are peculiar to the
circumstances arising in the instant case.
31. In conclusion,
(i). All the F.I.R's registered against the petitioner cannot be clubbed
together to form a single crime.
(ii). A comprehensive order of bail is not a procedure contemplated
by law to cover all crimes registered and to be registered in the future,
deeming the date of arrest in the initial crime as the date of arrest in all
such crimes.
(iii). As the petitioner has been in custody since 13-01-2023,
delayed recording of his arrest in the crimes already registered infringes
his right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(iv). In all crimes already registered against the petitioner as on this
date, his arrest shall be recorded within an outer period of ten days from
today.
(v). In all crimes registered hereafter alleging offences and
circumstances of a similar nature as those of the crimes already
registered, the procedure contemplated under section 41A Cr.P.C.shall be
followed, subject to the exception carved out under clause (vi) below.
(vi). If circumstances exist where the investigating officer requires
the arrest of the petitioner in crimes to be registered hereafter, the
directions in Arnesh Kumar's case and in Satender Kumar Antils' case,
and the provisions of section 41(1)(ii) Cr.P.C shall scrupulously be
complied with. Further, the Magistrate concerned shall scrutinize the need
for any detention in such cases with the seriousness it deserves and not in
a routine manner.
Thus, W.P.(Crl.) No.230 of 2023 is dismissed, while W.P.(Crl.)
No.381 of 2023 is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 230/2023
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.42 OF 2023
OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR CITY DATED 04-01-2023
RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3(a) A CHART SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE
CASES REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 381/2023
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.42 OF 2023
OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION
DATED 04-01-2023
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16-03-2023 OF
IIIRD ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
THRISSUR IN CRL.M.P.NO.1042 OF 2023
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF DETAILED LIST OF FIR
REGISTERED AT DIFFERENT POLICE STATIONS
IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.1343
OF 2023 IN CRIME NO.61 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
CHAVAKKAD DATED 23-03-2023
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.1345
OF 2023 IN CRIME NO.79 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
CHAVAKKAD DATED 23-03-2023
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF THE 186 FIR
REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT
DIFFERENT POLICE STATIONS IN THE STATE
