IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
......... – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Does sub-section (4) of Section 4 38 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 376- AB 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.215
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.
A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Another
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another
Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Another
Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Others
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat
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.
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. provides for issuing directions for granting bail to a person apprehending arrest.
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.
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....
A juvenile can file for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before actual apprehension, as the absence of 'arrest' in the Juvenile Justice Act does not negate this right.
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
Accused who has axe to grind against the applicant is likely to name him as an accused to falsely impleade him in the offence has not been denied in any manner either before the Sessions Court or bef....
Sec.438 of Cr.P.C reads as Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of section 3(2)(v) of the SCST Act and the application of section 18 and 18-A of the SCST Act in determining the maintainability....
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.