SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ker) 1052

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Niyasali – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Bail Application No. 7834 of 2022
Decided On : 23-05-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Rajesh Kumar T.K., Manoj V. George, T.N. Bindu, Aswin K.R., Mathews Benny, Keerthana V., Thushara Paily

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Bail application - Interim order restraining arrest was violated by the police - Station House Officer admits to mistake in arresting the petitioner under existing interim order - It is crucial for police to verify with prosecutor's office before arresting an accused while a bail application is pending. (Paras 2, 5, 6)

(B) Police Protocol - Duty to confirm interim orders with the prosecutor before making an arrest when bail applications are pending. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an accused in Crime No. 494 of 2022, was arrested in violation of an interim order prohibiting arrest pending the bail application. The Station House Officer acknowledged the error during court proceedings.

Findings of Court:
It was deemed improper for the police to arrest without confirmation of existing interim orders regarding bail. The bail application was rendered infructuous due to the arrest, allowing for a new application under Section 439 instead.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the police should have verified the existence of an interim order before arresting the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the responsibility of police to check with the prosecutor before arresting an accused if there is a pending bail application, thus upholding the integrity of judicial orders.

Result: Bail application disposed of as infructuous.

Table of Content
1. bail application filed under section 438 of cr.p.c. (Para 1)
2. interim order against arrest was violated. (Para 2)
3. mistake admitted by station house officer regarding the arrest. (Para 3 , 4)
4. importance of verifying interim orders before arrest. (Para 5)
5. bail application disposed due to arrest of the petitioner. (Para 6 , 7)

ORDER :

1. This Bail application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 494 of 2022 of Thamarassery Police Station. When this bail application was filed, this Court passed an interim order not to arrest the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner on 22.05.2023 mentioned before this Court that, when the interim order is in force, the petitioner was arrested by the Station House Officer, Thamarassery Police Station. Therefore, this Court passed the following order on 22.05.2023:

“It is submitted that when there is an interim order from this Court to the effect that the petitioner shall not be arrested, he was arrested violating the order. Station House Officer, Thamarassery will appear in person before this Court on 23.05.2023 at 1.45 P.M.

Issue a copy of this order today itself to the Public Prosecutor for communicating the same to the officer concerned.

Post on 23.05.2023 at 1.45 P.M. along with IA No. 1/2023.”

3. Today Station House Officer, Thamarassery appeared in person. The Station House Officer Submitted that, he committed a mistake in arresting the petitioner and he prayed for indulgence.

4. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant/2nd respondent submitted that, there is no interim order restraining the arrest as on the date of arrest. The petitioner was arrested on 29.04.2023. When the bail application came up for consideration on 22.12.2022, this Court passed the following order:

“Post on 16.01.2023. Interim order is extended till then.”

5. There was no posting on 16.01.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner not mentioned to the court about this mistake on posting the case on 16.01.2023 by the Registry. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested. I see no reason to take any action against the Station House Officer. But, it is conceded by the Station House Officer that, he has not verified with the office of the prosecutor before arresting the accused. Admittedly, the bail application is pending before this Court. It is the duty of every Police Officer to contact the office of the prosecutor before arresting an accused, when a bail application is pending before a court of law to verify whether there is any interim order passed by the Court. Without verifying the same from the office of the prosecutor, it is not proper on the part of the Police Officer to arrest an accused when an interim order is in force. Registry will forward a copy of this order to the State Police Chief. The State Police Chief will issue appropriate directions to all the police stations in this regard.

6. Now this bail application is infructuous. The bail application is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is already arrested. The petitioner is free to file appropriate application before the jurisdictional court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. If such an application is filed, the jurisdictional court will consider the bail application in the light of the fact that there was an interim order passed by this Court.

7. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top