The court upheld the necessity of involving local police officers in writ petitions concerning cyber fraud for better adjudication, emphasizing that procedural mandates allow for flexibility to ensure justice.

JUDGMENT

Soumen Sen, C.J.

The writ appeal arises out of the orders dated 10 December 2025 and 15 December 2025.

2. Mr.Yashwant Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that Paragraph 9 of the order dated 10 December 2025 and Paragraph 2 of the order dated 15 December 2025 are contrary to law and the judgment of the Division Bench in Shaji P.R. v. State of Kerala, 2006 KHC 819 : ILR 2006 (3) Ker. 251 The grievance of the appellant appears to be that the direction passed by the learned Single Judge on 10 December 2025 in Paragraph 9, whereby the Registry of this Court was directed to ensure that the SHO of the Police Station which covers the area of the petitioner’s address should be made a party in all the writ petitions pertaining to the de-freezing of bank accounts, before numbering the same, until further orders, is contrary to the ratio of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Shaji P.R. (Supra). It is submitted that unless the Rules are amended, the learned Single Judge could not have directed the addition of a party in a writ petition before it is registered.

3. In Shaji P.R. (Supra), the Division Bench considered the practice and procedure to be followed in relation to the filing of the pre-arrest bail or anticipatory bail prescribed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Section 437 which deals with filing of bail applications by a person who is arrested or detained alleging non-bailable offence. The practice and procedure to be followed in this regard are stated in paragraph 5 of the said judgment, which is reproduced below:

“5) Procedure for filing pre arrest bail or anticipatory bail applications are prescribed under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and S.437 deals with filing of bail applications by a person who is arrested or detained alleging non bailable offence. S.439p also deals with the procedure to be complied with while granting bail applications. Apart from the statutory provisions in the Cr.P.C, Kerala High Court Rules and also Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, prescribe procedure for filing applications in criminal court. R.30 to 36 of Chap.5 of Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, deals with appointment of Pleader and a Pleader can attend and plead for a party before a criminal court by filing a memo of appearance in accordance with R.31 of Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, instead of filing vakkalath. In the memo of appearance, there shall be a declaration by the advocate that he has been duly instructed on behalf of the party whom he claims to represent. R.31 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala reads as follows:

"31. Pleader to file memo of appearance. -- Every pleader as defined in clause(9) of S.2 of the Code, other than a public prosecutor, appearing either on behalf of the complainant or the accused shall file a memorandum of appearance containing a declaration that he has been duly instructed by, or on behalf of, the party whom he claims to represent.

Explanation. -- For the removal of doubts it is hereby clarified that Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors when they appear in Abkari cases and other complaints filed by any public servant under any law for the time being in force, need file only a memorandum of appearance containing a declaration that he has been duly instructed to appear in the case by such public servant or complainant, as the case may be.”

R.32 deals with form of vakkalath. R.