SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3835

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
P K PHILIP @ SUNNY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 3676/2024



Advocates:
R.SANTHOSH BABU, VISHAK.K.JOHNSON, SMT.NEEMA T.V.,SR.PP

Bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must contain all the requisite details to enable the court to determine the application.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Pre-Arrest Bail

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner apprehends arrest by the Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, in an unknown crime for allegedly committing a non-bailable offence.

Finding of the Court:

The bail application is vague and lacks the requisite details particularly the accusations made against the petitioner. The application is unsustainable in law and the court is not inclined to entertain the application.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi: The bail applications shall contain all the requisite details to enable the court to determine the application. As the requisite details are conspicuously absent in the application, the court is not inclined to entertain the application.

Final Decision: The application is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh application after incorporating all the requisite details.

ORDER

Dated this the th day of May , 202 4 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 Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, in an unknown crime for allegedly committing a non-bailable offence.

3. Heard; Sri.R.Santhosh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T. V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.609/2024 of the Thiruvalla Police Station which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 294 (b) of the Indian B.A. No.3676 of 2024 Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 .

The said submission is recorded.

5. On a reading of the bail application, it can be gathered that none of the details pertaining to the incident, crime number or the offences have been averred.

The bail application is vague and lacks the requisite details particularly the accusations made against the petitioner.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab [ (1980) 2 SCC 565 ] and Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha [ 2024 (1) KHC 389 ], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the bail applications shall contain all the requisite details to enable the court to determine the application. As the requisite details are conspicuously absent in the application, I am of the view that the application is unsustainable in law. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the application.

2024:KER:35689 B.A. No.3676 of 2024 In the result, the application is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh application after incorporating all the requisite details including his rank, case number and also the offences alleged against the petitioner.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top