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
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
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
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
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
