Kerala High Court
Prasoon.K.K vs State Of Kerala on 5 April, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 9969 OF 2023
CRIME NO.676/2023 OF Edakkad Police Station, Kannur
PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED IN CR.NO.676/2023 EDAKKAD POLICE
STATION:
PRASOON.K.K,
AGED 36 YEARS
AWHO FLAT NUMBER 2012, SILVER SAND ISLAND,
VYTILLA PO. PIN 682019, NADAMA VILLAGE,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
682019
BY ADV NISHIN GEORGE VIJAYABABU
RESPONDENT(S):
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, MUZHAPPILANGAD ,
MUZHAPPILANGAD PIN- 670662, KANNUR
OTHER PRESENT:
sr pp sri c s hrithwik
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
BAIL APPL. NO.9969 OF 2024
C.S.DIAS, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
B.A. No.9969 OF 2023
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Code'),
for an order of pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioner is presently the first accused in
Crime No.676/2023 of the Edakkad Police Station,
Kannur, registered against the accused for allegedly
committing the offence punishable under Section 420
and read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: the
accused, in furtherance of their common intention,
induced the de-facto complainant to pay them an
BAIL APPL. NO.9969 OF 2024
amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- on various dates to secure an
employment for her son in Indian Air force. However,
the accused did not secure the employment or return
the money. Thus, the accused have committed the
above offences.
4. Heard; Sri. Nishin George the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Hrwthik, the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the
accusations levelled against him. The offence under
section 420 will not be attracted to the case. The
petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary
and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the
petitioner is entitled to an order of pre arrest bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously
opposed the application. He submitted that there are
BAIL APPL. NO.9969 OF 2024
incriminating materials to substantiate the
involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The
petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and
recovery is to be effected. If the petitioner is granted
an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper the
investigation. Hence, the application may be
dismissed.
7. Recently, 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
BAIL APPL. NO.9969 OF 2024
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 xxx xxx
24. We have already held that the power to
grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary
power. Though in many cases it 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 xxx".
BAIL APPL. NO.9969 OF 2024
9. 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 a pre-arrest
bail is an extraordinary privilege, which should be
granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial
discretion conferred upon the court must be properly
exercised after proper application of mind to decide
whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
The Court has to be prima facie satisfied that the
accusation levelled against the applicant is only to
enrope him in the crime and would misuse his liberty.
10. On a consideration of the facts, the materials
placed on record and the rival submissions made
across the Bar, and on comprehending the nature,
seriousness and gravity of the accusations levelled
against the petitioners, that the investigation in the
case is at the preliminary stage, that the petitioner's
BAIL APPL. NO.9969 OF 2024
custodial interrogation is necessary and that the
recovery is to be effected, I am of the definite view
that the petitioner has not made out any exceptional
ground to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Sec.438 of the Code. Therefore, I hold
that this is not fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest
bail. Consequently, the bail applications are dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S. DIAS, JUDGE
mus
BAIL APPL. NO.9969 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2116/2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 THE COMPUTER PRINTOUT REGARDING THE
EXECUTION OF THE DOCUMENT NO.278/2018
IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, OBTAINED
FROM THE WEBSITE OF KERALA REGISTRATION
DEPARTMENT
Annexure A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2024
IN CRL.MC NO.292/2024 OF THE SESSIONS
COURT, KOZHIKODE
Annexure A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECEIPT
DATED 27.11.2023 ISSUED FROM IDEAL
HEALTHCARE, MAJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
12.03.2024 IN CRL.MC NO.318/2024 OF THE
SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
