Dated this the 02nd day of July, 2024 The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’, for short), for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2.The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.703/2024 of the Kottakkal Police Station, Malappuram, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364-A, 365, 323, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on

17.05.2024, at around 21.30 hours, the accused had abducted the defacto complainant from his house and demanded a ransom of Rs.1 Crore. They threatened the defacto complainant that they would murder him, if he did not pay the ransom. They kept him under captivity and physically and mentally tortured and assaulted him. By 3 a.m on the next morning they released him from their custody. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4.Heard; Sri.V.Harikrishanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. None of the offences alleged would be attracted against the petitioner. A reading of the First Information Report would show that there was no compulsion on the part of the accused to keep the defacto compalinant under captivity. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed.

6.The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. The accused had abducted the defacto complainant and kept him under their captivity and demanded ransom of Rs.1 Crore. Thereafter, they assaulted the defacto complainant who suffered grievous injuries including a fracture on the right knee. He made available the accident register cum wound certificate issued by the Aster MIMS Hospital, Kottackal dated 29.05.2024 to substantiate his assertions. He stated that the accused have committed a very heinous crime. The petitioner is an inveterate offender since he is involved in eight other crimes of a similar nature. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating witnesses and also tampering the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7.The allegation against the accused is that, they abducted the defacto complainant and demanded a ransom. As he failed to pay the amount, they physically and mentally assaulted him and he suffered grievous injuries. The said allegation stands prima facie substantiated by the accident register cum wound certificate produced before this Court. Neverthless these are all matters to be investigated and decided at the time of trial.

8.Recently, in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar [2024 KHC OnLine 6137] the Honourable Supreme Court, after referring to all the earlier decisions on the point, has observed in the following lines:

“8. It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under S.438, CrPC is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the