IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
Anu Mathew, W/o.Binu Punnayil Thomas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
B.A. No.4421 of 2022, B. A. No.4983 of 2022
Decided on : 11-04-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438, (1), 477, 2(q), 498A - Kerala High Court Act, 1958 – Section 3 - Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21, 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 - Granted interim bail - Absconded from India and went abroad - Applications seeking for grant of anticipatory bail – Whether presence of petitioner inside country is mandatory, at time of filing an application under Sec.438 Cr.P.C - Applicant/accused has not shown any proclivity or remotest intention to abscond or flee away from long arms of law. (Para 125)
Finding of the Court :
Court is of view that interim bail has been rightly granted in facts and circumstances of case - Applicant was in foreign country - Later, he has come down to India, as undertaken by him in his pleadings and later, he was arrested by Investigating Officer and was released on interim bail - Further, Investigating Officer has filed a statement in this case produced, along with memo of Spl. Government Pleader (Crl.), in which it has been inter alia stated as against thereof, that Investigating Officer has completed investigation and has filed final report by way of charge sheet - So investigati0n is now completed - Accordingly, interim bail order granted to applicant, as per interim bail order in this case is made absolute.
Result: B.A disposed of.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses jurisdiction of anticipatory bail courts under Sec.438 Cr.P.C when the applicant is abroad at filing time, holding that presence inside India is not strictly mandatory to file, but conditions may be imposed to regulate compliance (p_63, p_64, p_168, p_196-198, p_204-208). - Emphasizes that Sec.438 is a discretionary, protective provision balancing liberty and investigation, cautioning against blanket orders and stressing case-by-case assessment with factors from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Mhetre (p_68, p_70, p_71, p_72, p_75-89, p_92-99, p_111-119, p_133-135, p_187-189, p_192-199). - Confirms that there can be interim bail or no-arrest directives when warranted, but such orders must conform to Sec.438(1)-(2) and avoid stifling investigation; conditions like interrogation availability and not leaving India without permission are illustrative (p_32, p_35-39, p_190-213, p_203-213). - The decision in Neeharika and Ramesh Kumar Bung, and Sushila Aggarwal guidance are referenced to limit blanket orders and require reasons for interim measures (p_96-99, p_134-136, p_213-219). - Specific case conclusions: in B.A. Nos. 4421/2022 and 4983/2022, interim bail orders were made absolute or upheld due to absence of absconding intent and completion of investigation; presence abroad can be considered but is not a per se bar (p_221-225, p_226-235).
ORDER :
Alexander Thomas, J.
-Justice V R Krishna Iyer in G. Narasimhulu v. P.P., [(1978) 1 SCC 240, p. 242, para 1]
The afore captioned applications have been instituted under Sec.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants concerned, in respect to their involvement as accused persons in the crimes concerned.
2. These bail applications have come up for consideration before the Division Bench pursuant to the reference orders made by the Single Benches concerned, as per order dated 27.6.2022 in B.A.No.4421/2022 and order dated 28.6.2022 in B.A.No.4983/2022, whereby the cases have been referred to the Division Bench in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Sec.3 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. The sole issue has been referred for determination in B.A.No.4983/2022 and 3 issues have been referred for determination before the Division Bench in B.A.No.4421/2022. The said 4 issues in referred to the Division Bench for determination are as follows:
(ii) If a person, who is an accused in a case, absconded from India and went abroad, after fully knowing about the registration of a non-bailable offence against him and thereafter, if he files application under Sec.438 Cr.P.C., whether the bail court should entertain such an application ?
(iii) when an accused went abroad, after knowing that he is an accused in a non-bailable offence and thereafter, files a bail application before this Court, whether he is entitled for interim bail, as per Sec.438 (1) Cr.P.C ?
(iv) whether bail court has no restriction to pass orders restraining the Police in arresting the accused, without interim bail orders, as per Sec.438 (1) Cr.P.C. ?
It is on this basis that the aforesaid 2 anticipatory bail applications have come up for consideration before this Division Bench.
3. Earlier, with the consent of both sides, we had appointed Sri. Tom Jose Padinjarekkara, learned Advocate [formerly, Addl. Director General of Prosecution and Addl. State Prosecutor of this Court] and Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, learned Advocate [formerly, Senior Government Pleader-cum-Public Prosecutor of this Court] as Amici Curiae in these cases and it was also ordered that Smt. Saipooja, learned Advocate will assist both the Amici Curiae in these cases.
4. Heard Sri. E.D. George, learned counsel appearing for the sole applicant in B.A.No.4421/2022, Sri. P.A. Abdul Jabbar, learned counsel appearing for the sole applicant in B.A.No.4983/2022, Sri. S.U. Nazar, learned Prosecutor (Senior Government Pleader (Criminal)), Sri. Tom Jose Padinjarekkara, learned Amicus Curiae and Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, learned Amicus Curiae, both instructed and ably assisted by Smt. Saipooja, learned Advocate.
5. We have extensively heard the learned Advocates concerned, including the learned Amici Curiae and hearing has been conducted on various days. We have considered the submissions of the parties and the learned Amici Curiae and have also considered the various rulings cited by them. There is no necessity for us to get into the details of the submissions and we will deal with those issues hereinafter. Initially, we will be referring to the recommendations of the 41st Law Commission Report, which led to the enactment of Sec.438 Cr.P.C and then we will be dealing with various relevant case laws on the subject and the reference issues and the conclusions thereof. Then we will deal with the facts
Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016) 8 SCC 509
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273
Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor
King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1944 PC 18: 1944 LR 71 IA 203
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2021 SC 1918
Rashmi Rekha Thatoi & Anr. v. State of Orissa (2012) 5 SCC 690
State of Bihar v. J.A.C Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC 554
S.M.Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari (1970) 1 SCC 653:
Sauda Beevi v. S.I. of Police 2011 (4) KLT 52 (SB)
State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
Shafi v. State of Kerala 2020 (4) KLT 703
State represented by CBI v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187
Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2014) 16 SCC 623
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 694
Sec.438 of Cr.P.C reads as Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
(1) Anticipatory bail – Court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify offence or offences in respect of which alone order will be effective – Blanket order of anticipatory bail is bo....
The court can grant anticipatory bail even when non-bailable warrants are issued, particularly when additional graver charges arise, emphasizing exceptional circumstances and process respect.
The court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail can be granted in serious offences unless specifically excluded by law, and that the discretion to grant bail must consider the individual circumstances of....
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly in serious cases, and requires compliance with court conditions; failure to do so can lead to rejection of bail applications.
The power to grant Anticipatory Bail is available to the High Court and the Court of Sessions, even when cognizance is taken or a charge-sheet has been filed. The belief that the accused may be arres....
Anticipatory bail – Application seeking anticipatory bail would be maintainable even after filing of charge-sheet in Court. (Majority View)
Anticipatory bail can be denied if the applicant fails to comply with court orders and conditions, especially in serious cases involving multiple FIRs.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in serious cases, and requires strict compliance with court-imposed conditions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.