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) 31338

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
ANANTHU BABU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 6252/2024



Advocates:
BIJU .C. ABRAHAM

Anticipatory bail can be granted even in serious offences if custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary, subject to strict compliance conditions.

Headnote:

Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 408, 420, 477-A; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 92 - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners under strict conditions, emphasizing the necessity of custodial interrogation and the nature of the offences.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, accused of misappropriating funds from a physically challenged complainant, sought anticipatory bail. They acknowledged the liability but faced prosecution for multiple offences, including defalcation and cheque dishonor.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that while the petitioners were involved in the alleged offences, custodial interrogation was not deemed necessary, allowing for anticipatory bail under strict conditions.

Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail considering the nature of the offences and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that anticipatory bail could be granted despite the serious nature of the allegations, provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the investigation.

Final Decision: Anticipatory bail granted with strict conditions.

O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioners are the accused in crime No.1982 of 2023 of Eravipuram Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 408 , 420 and 477-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act , 2016.

3. The prosecution case is as follows: the defacto complainant is a physically challenged person. The 1st petitioner was employed as a clerk- accountant in the gas agency of the defacto complainant. While working as such, the 1st petitioner committed defalcation of the accounts and misappropriated an amount of Rs.13,22,594/-. He along with his mother, the 2nd petitioner accepted the liability and agreed to repay the amount. A part of the amount was paid and regarding the remaining a cheque was given, but the same was returned ‘unpaid’ when presented for encashment. Thus the petitioners have committed the aforementioned offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the crime was registered with respect to the same subject matter involved in Annexure-2 notice, which matured into a prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881. It is their contention that considering the nature of the offences and the complicity alleged against them, their custodial interrogation is absolutely unnecessary.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would contend that the petitioners have actively involved in the commission of the offence and as such, their custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary. Therefore, the application is liable only to be dismissed.

7. Considering the whole circumstances and the materials on record, I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail on strict conditions.

8. In such circumstances, this bail application is allowed and the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and in the event of they being arrested, they shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

(i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier;

(ii) They shall not leave the limits of the jurisdictional court without prior permission of the Magistrate until further orders;

(iii) They shall not go abroad without the permission of the jurisdictional Court and shall surrender their passport before the investigating officer, and in case they does not have a passport, they shall file an affidavit to that effect;

(iv) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; and (v) During the bail period, they shall not get involved in any offence.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

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