A court may exercise caution in granting anticipatory bail when the applicant is abroad, considering the circumstances of the case.

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant who is the accused No.1 in Crime No.613 of

2023 of Vatakara Police Station, Kozhikode District (Crime Branch Crime No.2980/CB/EOW & KKD/WYD/R/2023) and at present abroad has approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3 read with Section 21 (3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused, who is one of the Directors of Apollo Jewellery, Vatakara, along with other accused in the crime, wrongfully induced the defacto complainant to deposit amount in an unregulated deposit scheme of the said establishment by offering share of profit. On 10.01.2020, the defacto complainant deposited Rs.25,00,000/- in the said establishment and they returned Rs.5,00,000/- only to the defacto complainant and thereafter cheated the defacto complainant by not returning Rs.20,00,000/- or share of profit and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Athul Krishna N.S., the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.V.Sreeja, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

Perused the case diary.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in Anu Mathew and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2023 (3) KHC 151 ] has considered the question whether the presence of the accused inside the country is mandatory at the time of filing an application for anticipatory bail. It was held that the mere fact that an accused happens to be in a foreign country, at the time he institutes an application for pre-arrest bail under Sec.438 Cr.P.C., will not be a ground to hold that such an applicant cannot legally maintain his plea for pre-arrest bail. However, it was further held that though the Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for pre-arrest bail at the time when the accused is not present in India, the question whether such discretion should be exercised in favour of the accused in a given case is a matter that the Court has to look into considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Coming into the facts of this case, the applicant is involved in 86 cases of similar nature. It is submitted that an open dated non- bailable warrant is pending against the applicant and he has been absconding for a long period.

In these circumstances, I am of the view that it is not a case where this Court should exercise discretion to entertain an application for anticipatory bail while the applicant is abroad, in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the applicant to move for pre-

arrest bail after he comes to India.

Sd/-