Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25779
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
ANTONY SUNNY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 818 2023
P.SANJAY A.PARVATHI MENON BIJU MEENATTOOR PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM KIRAN NARAYANAN RAHUL RAJ P.AMRUTHA M. NAIR MUHAMMED BILAL.V.A
The court established that arrest procedures must uphold the right to liberty and due process, ensuring timely recording of arrests per legal provisions.
Headnote:
Arrest - Petition for Writ - CrPC Sections [41, 41A] - The court evaluated the legality of the petitioner's arrest, emphasizing the adherence to fair investigation principles and the distinct nature of each FIR, ultimately ruling against clubbing the FIRs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a businessman accused in multiple FIRs related to a financial scheme, claims his arrest is illegal as he is neither a shareholder nor a director of the concerned company, and seeks consolidation of the FIRs and relief from custody.
Issues: Whether all FIRs against the petitioner can be clubbed, whether comprehensive bail can be granted, and the implications of delayed arrest recording on the petitioner's rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the distinct nature of each FIR bars their clubbing; comprehensive bail was not legally justified; however, delayed arrest recording violates the right to liberty under Article 21.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed with directions regarding the recording of arrest in existing and future cases.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
(i) Call for the records relating to the arrest and detention of petitioner and peruse the same;
(ii) Declare that the arrest of petitioner in crimes relating to complaints in connection with Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd (KUNL) is illegal in view of the fact that he is neither a shareholder or director of the company as evidenced by Ext. A-1; or in the alternative;
(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the police to consolidate all the FIRs relating to complaints against petitioner in connection with Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd (KUNL) by treating the FIR registered first in time as done in the cases Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC Online SC 3459 and Digihome Solutions (P) Ltd. v. Continental Device India Ltd., 2015 SCC Online P&H 2261;
(iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take steps for transfer of all cases to the court designated under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act 2019 BUDS Act;
(v) To grant interim bail to petitioner and direct his release from custody with respect to all the F.I.R.s emanating out of the complaints against Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd. (KUNL);
(vi) To grant protection to the petitioner in all the FIRs already lodged and in all the future FIRs regarding the above case, wherein the Petitioner will be arrayed as accused, not to arrest without giving notice under Section 41A and days thereafter to approach the concerned courts of law;
(vii) Dispense with filing of translations of vernacular documents filed along with this Writ Petition;
(viii) Award cost of this Writ Petition to be realized from the respondents.
(SIC)
2. Petitioner, is a businessman, promoter and director of several business establishments having operations in the southern states of India. He is in jail now. The main prayer in this writ petition is to declare that the arrest of petitioner in crimes relating to complaints in connection with Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd (KUNL) is illegal in view of the fact that he is neither a shareholder or director of the company as evidenced by Ext.P1. There is a further prayer to issue direction to the police to consolidate all the FIRs relating to complaints against petitioner in connection with Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd (KUNL) by treating the FIR registered first in time as done in Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of U.P., [2021 SCC Online SC 3459] and Digihome Solutions (P) Ltd. v. Continental Device India Ltd., [2015 SCC Online P&H 2261].
3. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the Public Prosecutor submitted that in similar situation, this Court considered the issue in detail after considering the dictum of the Apex Court, in the judgment dated 25.08.2023 in W.P.(Crl.) No.230/2023. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:
“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 can be clubbed together?
11. In the instant case, 283 complaints are filed at different locations at different police stations in the State, all relating to separate and independent transactions. The nature of inducement, the quantum of the deposit, the place where the inducement was offered are all distinct, apart from the period for which the deposits were offered. The complainants are also different, and even the provisions of law applicable are also different in a few of the crimes. The complainants are also not parties to the writ petition. Therefore it would be prejudicial to th
