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

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19251

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
MR.PRAVEEN K.P. @ PRAVEEN RANA, – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 230 2023



Advocates:
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.), SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE, SRI.P.PRIJITH, SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA, SRI.R.GITHESH, SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE, SRI.MANJUNATH MENON, SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT, SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN, SRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.

A comprehensive bail or clubbing of FIRs cannot be presumed; each FIR must maintain its integrity based on individual circumstances.

Headnote:

Procedure - Writ Petitions - BUDS Act, Cr.P.C. Section 41A - The court analyzed the legal provisions regarding clubbing of FIRs and bail entitlements in light of various precedents, emphasizing individual rights against unlawful procedures.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed two writ petitions seeking clubbing of multiple FIRs against him and bail based on the timing of his arrests, alleging violations of his rights due to numerous independent complaints related to similar offenses.

Issues: The main issues were whether multiple FIRs could be clubbed together and if comprehensive bail could be granted based on the arrest date in one case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that FIRs cannot be clubbed solely for the accused's convenience, and that there are no legal grounds for blanket bail across different cases where unique allegations exist.

Final Decision: W.P.(Crl.) No.230 of 2023 is dismissed; W.P.(Crl.) No.381 of 2023 is disposed of.

JUDGMENT

These two writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner seeking reliefs relating to crimes registered against him in various police stations. Since the issue raised in these writ petitions are inter-connected and they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. In W.P.(Crl.) No.230 of 2023, petitioner seeks for a direction to club together all the crimes registered against him and also to transfer all the cases to the Designated Court under the BUDS Act. In W.P.(Crl.) No.381 of 2023, petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to be enlarged on bail in all cases registered against him as detailed in the document produced in the writ petition in view of the decision in Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India and Others (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936) by treating the first crime registered against him as the principal FIR. In the latter writ petition, the reliefs sought also include a declaration that judicial custody in all the crimes against the petitioner be reckoned from 13.01.2023, the date of remand in the first case registered against him.

3. On 04.01.2023, Crime No.42 of 2023 of Thrissur East Police Station, alleging offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioner. Soon, several other crimes were also registered against him. He was arrested on 11.01.2023, and since then, he remains in judicial custody.

4. Petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director of an entity by the name M/s. Safe Strong Business Consultancy Private Limited. In Crime No.42 of 2023, it was alleged that petitioner promised to pay a franchisee stipend every month if a deposit is made and return the deposit after five years or to return a bulk amount along with the deposit after the term and failed to pay any amount as promised. Writ petition refers to 115 crimes registered against him before various police stations at Thrissur, Palakkad, Kannur, Kottayam, Wayanad and Pathanamthitta.

5. Petitioner contended that the allegations against him in all the crimes are the same and that investigation of those crimes have been transferred to the State Crime Branch as per an order dated 19.01.2023. Petitioner contends that all those crimes registered against him ought to have been clubbed together and re-registered as a single crime. Petitioner also contended that the Crime Branch had added offences under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short 'the BUDS Act') and transferred the cases to the Designated Court - III (Additional Sessions Court), Thrissur. Petitioner further alleges that the registration of a series of crimes on the basis of the same transaction and cause of action is illegal as they need to register only one FIR in connection with the offence, and hence all the FIRs ought to be clubbed together as a single offence. The reliefs, as mentioned earlier, are claimed on the basis of the aforesaid facts.

6. Petitioner alleged that after the news of registration of the first crime became known, there was a scramble to lodge crimes at different police stations. As on the date of filing of the said writ petition, 186 crimes have been registered. Though petitioner has been in custody since 13.01.2023, arrest has been recorded only in a limited number of cases. Petitioner alleges that the conduct of the Investigating Officer in omitting to record the arrest is arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

7. An example has been cited in respect of Crime Nos.61 of 2023 and 79 of 2023 of Vadanappally Police Station wherein, petitioner’s bail applications were dismissed, stating that the accused has not been arrested. Since arrest has not been recorded in 142 cases, he alleges that he is not able to get bail or even attempt to get regular bail. Thus, petitioner prays to be enlarged on bail in all the cases registered against him.

8. Counter affidavits have been filed in both writ petitions. The request for clubbing of va

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