Kerala High Court
K.L Punith vs State Of Kerala on 5 June, 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1192 OF 2024
CRIME NO.666/2023 OF NOOLPUZHA POLICE STATION, Wayanad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2024 IN CRMC NO.30
OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
K.L PUNITH,
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. LOKESH K.G, RESIDING AT 155, TUMKUR ROAD,
NEAR VENKATESHWARA PRINTERS, KUDUR,RAMANGARA,
KARNATAKA, PIN - 561101
BY ADVS.
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
GEORGE MATHEW
MATHEW K.T.
GEORGE K.V.
STEPHY K REGI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
RNOOLPUZHA POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673
595, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 673595
3 RAFEEK,
S/O ABDULLA,PARAKKAL HOUSE, CHULLIYODE,NENMENI
P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT (IS IMPLEADED R3 AS PER
ORDER DATED 11-4--24 )
BY ADV No Advocate
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1192 of 2024
-:2:-
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code', for short),
for an order of pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime
No.666/2023 of the Noolpuzha Police Station,
Wayanad, registered against him for allegedly
committing the offences punishable under Section 420
of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and Section
69D of the Information Technology Act.
3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the
accused with an intention to cheat the de facto
complainant, had unloaded an advertisement on
Facebook promising to deliver five alloy wheels for
Rs.25,000/-. Based on the advertisement, the de facto
complainant paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- on
21.08.2023 and 22.8.2023 through Phonepay.
However, the accused failed to deliver the alloy wheels
as promised. Thus, the accused has committed the
above offences.
4. Heard; Sri.Sunil Kumar A.G., the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha
S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally
innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A
reading of the materials on record would substantiate
that the offence under Section 420 of the IPC will not
be attracted. The petitioner has settled the dispute
with the de facto complainant out of court and the de
facto complainant does not have any subsisting
grievance against the petitioner. Therefore, the
petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary
and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the
application may be allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application. She submitted that the investigation is in
progress. She also stated that the Investigating Officer
is unaware as to any settlement arrived at between the
parties. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is
necessary and recovery is to be effected. Hence, the
application may be dismissed.
7. When the application came up for consideration
on 23.4.2024, this Court directed the petitioner to
surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten
days from the date of order and subject himself to
interrogation.
8. Today, when the application was taken up for
consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that the petitioner has not complied with the order
dated 23.4.2024.
9. It is seen that the petitioner has moved a
similar application before the Court of Session,
Kalpetta by filing Crl.M.C.No.30/2024. The learned
Sessions Judge, by order dated 18.4.2024 dismissed
the petitioner's application on the ground that the
petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and
there are sufficient materials to establish that the
petitioner's involvement in the case.
10. 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 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 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"
11. 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.
On an anxious consideration of the facts, rival
submissions made across the Bar and the materials
placed on record, especially on comprehending the
nature, gravity, and seriousness of the accusations
leveled against the petitioner, that the petitioner has
not complied with the interim order dated 23.4.2024
and further that the petitioner's custodial interrogation
is necessary and recovery is to be effected, I am
satisfied that the petitioner has not made out any
exceptional ground to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.438 of the Code.
Hence, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary
powers of this Court to grant the petitioner an order of
pre-arrest bail.
Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
rmm/5/6/2024
