Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21954
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
D. ANIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 6375 2023
S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Prerith Philip Joseph, Anil Kumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan
The judgment clarifies that delays in recording arrests infringe on the right to liberty and must be rectified promptly while ensuring fair investigative practices.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure - Criminal Miscellaneous Case - Section 41, 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Summary of court's interpretation of provisions regarding arrest and liberty, highlighting the balance between individual rights and investigative power.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in multiple fraud cases, sought a direction for notice under Section 41A of CrPC for ongoing investigations and to prevent arrest without recorded notice, given their previous incarceration since 2022.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that delays in recording arrests violate the petitioners' rights under Article 21. It directed that any pending crimes against them must have arrests recorded within ten days and emphasized compliance with Sections 41 and 41A of CrPC in future cases.
Issues: Whether all FIRs could be combined and whether comprehensive bail could be granted for all similar offences and how these relate to the rights of the petitioners under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the principle that each FIR represents a separate transaction under the law, requiring individual scrutiny, and held that the rights under Article 21 must be upheld without misusing investigative powers.
Final Decision: The court declined to club FIRs or grant comprehensive bail but mandated timely recording of arrests where applicable.
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in all the crimes registered against the petitioners as the Managing Director and Directors of M/s. PRD Mini Nidhi Limited or otherwise, wherein the FIRs are already registered and where the arrest of the petitioners is not recorded and also with respect to any crimes which may be registered against the petitioners hereinafter.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in more than 185 Crimes registered by Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with SEction 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act , 2019 (BUDS Act) are also alleged. It is the case of the petitioners that they are granted regular bail in 152 cases by this Court after undergoing incarceration from 9.11.2022 and the petitioners were released from jail on 4.8.2023.
3. The prosecution allegation against the 1st accused who is the Managing Director, accused Nos.2 to 4 who are the Board Members and the 5th accused who is the Manager of PRD Mini Nidhi Limited, without any licence or approval from the Reserve Bank of India for the collection of money/deposit from general public, made the defacto complainants believe that they are having licence and approval from the Reserve Bank of India for collecting money/deposit from the public and by offering higher rate of interest, collected various amounts from the defacto complainant and failed to return the deposit money or interest whereby the accused have cheated the defacto complainant and thus committed the above offences.
4. This Court as per Annexure-II order, was pleased to direct the Investigating Officer to record the arrest of the petitioners in all the cases already registered. Accordingly the petitioners were granted regular bail by this Court in 152 cases as evident by Annexure-III list is the submission. After the release of the petitioners from prison, they came to know that several crimes are already registered against the petitioners wherein the arrest is not recorded and that they would be arrested in connection with the above crimes at the times of appearance before the Investigating Officer, which is one of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail. It is the case of the petitioners that if they are issued with a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure , they can appear before the Investigating Officer or apply for pre-arrest bail from the competent court of law.
Hence this criminal miscellaneous case is filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. When this matter came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that in similar situation, this Court considered the issue in detail in the judgment dated 25.08.2023 in W.P.(Crl.) No.230/2023. The Public Prosecutor submitted that in those cases, the petitioners were in custody and the petitioners in this case are already released on bail. But even then, I am of the considered opinion that the dictum laid down by this Court in the above judgment is applicable in this case also. The relevant portion of the judgment dated
25.08.2023 in W.P.(Crl.) No.230/2023 is extracted hereunder:
“9. I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.Thomas P.Kuruvila, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.P.Narayanan, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents.
10. The points that arise for consideration are (i) whether all the FIRs registered against the petitioner can be clubbed together (ii) whether a comprehensive bail can be directed to be granted in all cases registered against the petitioner, deeming his date of arrest as 13.01.2023 and (iii) any other reliefs.
(i) Whether all the FIRs registered against the petitioner
