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

2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31880

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
RANAPRATAP – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./3363/2018



Advocates:
SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR, SMT.A.SALINI LAL

Anticipatory bail may be granted if no prima facie case exists and custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary.

Headnote:

Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C - Section 384 I.P.C - The court interpreted that no prima facie case under Section 384 I.P.C was established, thus granting anticipatory bail considering the absence of coercive elements.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, accused in a criminal case, was alleged to have threatened the manager of a restaurant for money. No payment was made, raising doubts about the applicability of Section 384 I.P.C.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the absence of any actual delivery of money weakened the prosecution's case under Section 384 I.P.C, suggesting no necessity for custodial interrogation.

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the lack of prima facie evidence for the alleged offenses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that without a prima facie case and no coercive actions taken, anticipatory bail is justified, acknowledging the importance of safeguarding accused rights.

Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed with specific conditions.

O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section

438 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in the case registered as Crime No.1898/2017 of the Kovalam police station under Sections 451, 384, 294(b) and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. The prosecution case is that on 06.12.2017, at about 19.30 hours, accused 1 to 5 criminally trespassed into the restaurant by name 'Vava See Foods', in which the de facto complainant was the Manager and that they demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/- from him threatening that if the amount is not paid, they would not allow him to conduct the restaurant there. It is also alleged that the second accused beat on the left cheek of the de facto complainant.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 384 I.P.C. However, on a perusal of the first information statement given to the police by the de facto complainant, it is seen that actually no money was paid or no property delivered by the de facto complainant to any of the accused on the threat made by them. Therefore, prima facie, it is doubtful whether the offence punishable under I.P.C would be attracted to the facts of the case. This is also evident from the fact that the offence punishable under I.P.C has been changed as offence under Section 511 of 384 I.P.C, as revealed from the case diary. At any rate, since no amount was paid or no property delivered to the accused by the de facto complainant, custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation of the case. In these circumstances, I am inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

In the result, the petition is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

1) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of his arrest by the police in Crime No. 1898/2017 of the Kovalam Police Station.

2) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer between 9 a.m and 11 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of three months from the date of his release on bail.

3) The petitioner shall produce his passport in the Magistrate's Court / jurisdictional court concerned within three days from the date of his release on bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in that court within that period.

4) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence in the case.

5) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court concerned.

6) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when directed by him in writing to do so. 7) If the petitioner violates any of the conditions of bail, it is open to the Court having jurisdiction over the case to cancel his bail without any further orders from this Court but in accordance with law.

(

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