IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated By The High Court - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
JPP No. 4 of 2024
Decided On : 01-10-2024
Bail - Pre-Arrest Bail - BNSS, Section 482; Cr.P.C., Section 438 - The court emphasized the necessity of disclosing the accused's location in bail applications, particularly when abroad, to prevent suppression of material facts influencing bail decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by accused persons in a crime alleging fraud, where the accused's location abroad was not disclosed in previous bail applications, raising concerns about the integrity of the bail process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suppression of the fact that the accused were abroad at the time of filing bail applications undermines the judicial process and necessitates stricter disclosure requirements in such applications.
Issues: Whether the accused's failure to disclose their location abroad in pre-arrest bail applications constitutes suppression of material facts affecting the court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-disclosure of the accused's location abroad is a significant material fact that must be disclosed in bail applications, as it influences the court's decision-making process.
Result: The JPP is disposed of with directions for improved disclosure in bail applications.
ORDER :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
This JPP is registered pursuant to the order dated 05.09.2024 of the learned Single Judge in B.A.No.5674 of 2024, which is one filed by respondents 3 and 4 herein, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.493 of 2024 of Kannur Town Police Station, invoking the provisions under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNSS’), for an order of pre-arrest bail. The said crime is registered against them and two others, alleging the commission of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. In the order dated 05.09.2024, after referring to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Anu Mathew v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KHC 151] and that of the Apex Court in Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha [(2024) 4 SCC 432], the learned Single Judge directed the Registry to place B.A.No.5674 of 2024 before the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice to consider whether the matter is to be placed before the Division Bench dealing with the matters relating to Practice and Procedure in the Judicial and Administrative Sections of the High Court, to lay down the practice and procedure to be incorporated in the bail application module, since the Court is coming across numerous applications for pre-arrest bail, where the fact that the accused are abroad is deliberately suppressed. By the order dated 23.09.2024 of the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice the Registry was directed to place the matter before the Division Bench dealing with the matters relating to Practice and Procedure in the Judicial and Administrative Sections of the High Court. The Division Bench, by the order dated 23.09.2024, directed the Registry to register a JPP and list it before the Bench.
3. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent State, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-charge for the 2nd respondent Union of India, the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned counsel for the additional 5th respondent.
4. In the order dated 05.09.2024 in B.A.No.5674 of 2024, the learned Single Judge noticed that accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.493 of 2024 of Kannur Town Police Station, who are arrayed as the accused in Crime No.9/2024 of the CBCID, Kannur had moved this Court in B.A.No.4392 of 2024 for pre-arrest bail in Crime No.9/2024. In the said application, which was dismissed by the order dated 11.07.2024 [Annexure-R2(A) order produced in B.A.No.5674 of 2024], accused Nos.3 and 4 had suppressed the fact that they were abroad and are still at large. Accused Nos.3 and 4 had filed B.A.No.4392 of 2024 without adhering to the guidelines laid down by the Division Bench in Anu Mathew [2023 (3) KHC 151] for filing an application for pre-arrest bail by the accused who are abroad. In B.A.No.5674 of 2024, the 2nd applicant-accused No.2 is abroad. Although he has stated (in paragraph 4 of the statement of facts) that he will come down to India during the third week of July, 2024, he has not returned.
5. In the order dated 05.09.2024 in B.A.No.5674 of 2024, the learned Single Judge noticed the filing of numerous bail applications for pre-arrest bail, where the fact that the accused is abroad is deliberately suppressed. The Investigating Officers may also not be in a position to ascertain as to whether the accused is in India or abroad. If the application is dismissed, the accused refuses to come down to India. Many times, it is only when the second application is filed that it is revealed that the accused is abroad.
6. In Anu Mathew [2023 (3) KHC 151] a Division Bench of this Court held that an anticipatory bail court has jurisdiction to entertain and consider a pre-arrest bail plea filed under sub-section (1) of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, ‘Cr.P.C.’), even if the applicant accused is abroad at the time of filing of the application. Since the cardinal purpose of bail is the security for the appearance of the accused p
AI
The court established that accused persons must disclose their location in bail applications to ensure transparency and proper judicial consideration.
The court emphasized the need for clear procedures in pre-arrest bail applications, especially for accused residing abroad, to prevent suppression of facts.
A court may exercise caution in granting anticipatory bail when the applicant is abroad, considering the circumstances of the case.
Sec.438 of Cr.P.C reads as Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
Pre-arrest bail is not granted as a matter of course and requires clear, specific justification, particularly when the applicant conceals significant facts such as being abroad during the application....
Pre-arrest bail application is not maintainable after arrest; only regular bail may be sought subsequently.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of special circumstances to file anticipatory bail directly before the court and the need for a concrete belief of arrest based on ....
The court can grant transit bail to prevent inter-state arrest, emphasizing personal liberty under specified conditions.
The submission of an absconding charge sheet renders a bail application infructuous under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
A bail application becomes infructuous when a final report is filed under the relevant statutory provisions.
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.