The discretionary power to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be exercised cautiously, considering the nature and gravity of the accusations and other relevant factors.

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2.The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.830/2024 of the Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 144, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 385, 386, 392, 398, 506 & 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

3.The gist of the prosecution case is that; the de-facto complainant had availed of a loan to purchase a vehicle from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. But, he committed default in repayment of the equated monthly installments for the months of March and April. On 07.05.2024, at around 11 a.m., the accused Nos.2 to 4 went to the office of the de-facto complainant and threatened him. Thereafter, on

10.05.2024, at around 17.30 hours, the accused Nos.2 to 4 and two other unidentifiable persons wrongfully restrained the lorry driven by the drivers of the de-facto complainant named Mohammed Shameel and Jamsheer and showered obscene words at them. Then, the two unidentifiable persons tried to inflict injuries on them by placing a knife on the throat of Mohammed Shameel and threatened to murder him. Again, on

18.05.2024, at around 15.30 hours, the accused Nos.2 & 3 and two other unidentifiable persons threatened the driver of the vehicle by pointing a gun and attempted to inflict injury by waving a knife. Thereafter, they robbed the lorry bearing registration No.KL-23-W-4151. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4.Heard: Sri. T. Jeevan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. A reading of Annexure-A1 First Information Report [FIR] would substantiate that none of the offences alleged would be attracted to the facts of the case. The de-facto complainant had availed a loan from the bank and defaulted in payment of interest. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. By no stretch of imagination the petitioners’ custodial interrogation is 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 the petitioners have repeatedly threatened the de-facto complainant and his drivers by attacking them with weapons. They have forcefully taken away the lorry from their possession. The petitioners have committed a very heinous crime. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is necessary, and recovery is to be effected. If the petitioners are granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would certainly sabotage the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7.The prosecution allegation against the petitioners is that they had threatened the de-facto complainant and his employees by showing them weapons, and finally robbed the lorry purchased by the de-facto complainant. The materials on record prima facie substantiate the petitioners' involvement in the crime.

8.In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [ (2011) 1 SCC 694 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia case [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] that the High Court or the Court of Session has t