Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary privilege, granted only in exceptional cases where the applicant demonstrates false implication and misuse of liberty.

O R D E R

The application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 126/2024 of the Varappuzha Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against five accused persons for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 392 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 02.03.2024, at 11:45 hours, five accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, and the first accused inserted his hands into the pocket of the defacto complainant and robbed Rs. 1,000/-. Then, the accused 2 and 4 forcefully held the hands of the defacto complainant and fisted him, and the second accused again beat the defacto complainant on his back with a helmet. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri. T.E. Ismail, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Smt. Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s culpability in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately implicated the petitioner as an accused in the crime. Even though it is alleged that the petitioner is involved in five other crimes, he has been acquitted in three crimes. 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. She submitted that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime. The petitioner is a habitual offender since he is involved in five other crimes, out of which four crimes arein the years 2017 and 2019 and one crime in the year 2024 for allegedly committing the offences under Section 324 of the IPC. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary, and recovery is to be effected. Even though the petitioner had filed a similar application before the Court of Session, Ernakulam, the same was dismissed by Annexure A1 order. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he had committed robbery of Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of the defacto complainant.

8. On a meticulous scrutiny of the materials on record, prima facie, I find that the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. Moreover, it is reported that the petitioner is a habitual offender since he is involved in 5 other crimes.

9. 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 complainant. (See the decision of this Court in HDFC B