IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 2157 of 2023, Bail Appl. No. 144 of 2023
Decided on : 20-09-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438(4) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376-AB, 376(3) - Minor girl - Offence of rape - Pre-arrest bail - Applicants are alleged to have committed penetrative sexual assault on their own minor daughters - Does sub-section (4) of Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure create an absolute bar in granting pre-arrest bail to an accused involved in offence of rape of a minor girl – Materials are sufficient to hold that a prima facie case of commission of offence is made against applicant to attract exclusion clause of Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C. (Para 27)
Finding of the Court :
Report shows that allegation made by victim against father is true - It is specifically stated that mother did not indoctrinate victim about alleged incident - These materials are sufficient to hold that a prima facie case of commission of offence is made against applicant to attract exclusion clause of Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C - According to learned Senior Public Prosecutor, custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary to unearth more details about incident - Considering gravity of offence, stage of investigation and bar provided under Section 438(4) of Cr. P.C., Court is of view this is not a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction vested with Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. could be invoked.
Result: BA dismissed.
ORDER :
Does sub-section (4) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure create an absolute bar in granting pre-arrest bail to an accused involved in the offence of rape of a minor girl? – This is the important question that arises for consideration in these bail applications.
2. The applicants in both cases who allegedly committed the offence, among other things, punishable under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C) seeking pre-arrest bail.
3. The facts in both cases are almost identical. The applicants are alleged to have committed penetrative sexual assault on their own minor daughters. The crimes were registered pursuant to the complaint of the mother of the victims. The applicants totally deny the allegations. They contend that a false case has been foisted against them at the behest of their wives to deny the custody of the minor victim, which they are fighting at the Family Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant in BA No.144/2023 -Sri.B. Raman Pillai and Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the applicant in BA No.2157/2023 – Sri. Shibin K.F., the learned Senior Counsel for the defacto complainant in BA No.144/2023 -Sri. P.Vijayabhanu and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor -Sri. C.S.Hrithwik
5. The learned counsel for the applicants Sri.B. Raman Pillai, Sri.S.Rajeev and Sri.Shibin K.F submitted that the applicants are innocent of the offences alleged against them and they have been falsely implicated in the case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to get pre-arrest bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri. C.S.Hrithwik as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the defacto complainant Sri. Vijayabhanu, on the other hand, submitted that the case diary in BA No.144/2023 reveals that the accusation made against the applicant therein is very serious in nature, it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part and his custodial interrogation is necessary for the investigation.
6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri.C.S.Hrithwik further submitted that sub-section (4) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C, explicitly excludes the application of the provision relating to pre-arrest bail in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under subsection (3) of Section 376 or Section 376-AB or Section 376-DA or Section 376-DB of IPC and inasmuch as the offences alleged in both cases include Section 376-AB of IPC as well, the applications for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable. In reply to the said argument, the learned counsel for the applicant in BA No.144/2023 Sri.S.Rajeev submitted that the exclusion of pre-arrest bail provisions by sub-section (4) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C would not constitute an absolute bar for the grant of bail if a prima facie case of commission of the offences mentioned therein is not made out or if the allegations are patently false or malafide. Reliance was placed on the three-Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others [(2020) 4 SCC 727]. Referring to Sections 60A and 41 of Cr.P.C. and Section 26 of IPC, the learned counsel for the applicant in BA No.2157/2023 Sri.Shibin K.F submitted that the bar under sub-section (4) of Section 438 would attract only in a case where the information received by the police regarding the commission of the offence by the accused is credible and based on that credible information, there are reasons to believe that the accused has committed the offence.
7. Before dealing with the merits of the cases, I will advert to the plea of maintainability raised by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor based on Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C.
8. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. provides for issuing directions for granting bail to a person a
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [(2014) 8 SCC 273)
A.S.Krishnan v. State of Kerala [(2004) 11 SCC 576]
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2015 SC 3090
Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Another [(2018) 6 SCC 454]
Hema Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradeshand Others [(2014) 4 SCC 453]
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(1994) 4 SCC 602]
Jayarajan v. State(2016 (2) KLT 859)
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others [(1994) 4 SCC 260]
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.(AIR 2014 SC 187)
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others [(2020) 4 SCC 727]
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra[(2011) 1 SCC 694
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another(AIR 2020 SC 831)
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Another(AIR 2022 SC 3386)
Suhara v. Muhammed Jaleel(2019 (2) KLT 960)
Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Others [(2020) 4 SCC 761]
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. provides for issuing directions for granting bail to a person apprehending arrest.
The exclusion of anticipatory bail under Section 438(4) is not absolute; it applies only when a prima facie case exists and does not prevent bail in cases of patently false allegations.
Exclusion of pre-arrest bail in Section 438(4) is not absolute; courts can grant bail if no prima facie case of assault is established.
The exclusion of pre-arrest bail under Section 438(4) Cr.P.C. is not absolute; it does not apply when no prima facie case is made against the accused.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted even in serious offenses if the applicant demonstrates a lack of prima facie evidence against them, reinforcing the principles of personal ....
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 exclusion of Section 438 of the CrPC to offences punishable under the UAP Act is absolute. An application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable in respect of offences punishable under the UAP....
Exclusion of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is absolute for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, necessitating prima facie evidence for conside....
Liberty of a juvenile is the supreme factor, and he or she cannot be deprived of the liberty merely because there is no remedy seeking protection against his or her pre-arrest available under the Act
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.