Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3627 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ARUN M. T,
AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O. THANKACHAN, PLAKKIYIL HOUSE,
ARPOOKKARA EAST PO, KOTTAYAM,
PIN – 686008
BY ADVS.
M.T.SURESHKUMAR
MANJUSHA K
SREELAKSHMI SABU
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT NEEMA T V
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3627/2024
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2024
Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Pre-Arrest Bail
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner apprehends arrest by the Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam, in an unknown crime for allegedly committing a non-bailable offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bail application was vague and lacked the requisite details, particularly the offences levelled against the petitioner. The court dismissed the bail application without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after incorporating all the necessary details.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: A bail application should contain the elementary details pertaining to the accusations levelled against the accused, as per the rulings in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha.
Final Decision: The bail application is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after incorporating all the requisite details.
The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , for an order of pre-arrest bail.
2.The petitioner apprehends arrest by the Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam, in an unknown crime for allegedly committing a non-bailable offence.
3.Heard; Sri.M.T. Sureshkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.552/2024 of the Palarivattom Police Station, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the B.A.No.3627/2024 Indian Penal Code, 1860 . The said submission is recorded.
5.on a reading of the bail application, it can be seen that none of the details or materials pertaining to the incident, crime number, the offences or the rank of the accused have been stated. the bail application is vague and lacks the requisite details, particularly the offences levelled against the petitioner. it is well-settled in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 scc 565 ] as well as Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha [2024 (1) khc 389] that a bail application should contain the elementary details pertaining to the accusations levelled against the accused. therefore, i am of the view that the present application is unsustainable in law and the petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh application after incorporating all the requisite details. in the result, the bail application is dismissed, b.a.no.3627/2024 without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh bail application, if so advised, after incorporating his rank, crime number, the offences and all the accusations levelled against him.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
