The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary, given the petitioner was a habitual offender in similar crimes and was unlikely to repeat offences if released.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1941
Bail Appl..No. 1195 of 2019
CRIME NO. 1658/2018 OF Narakkal Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
ANIL KUMAR
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN, KALATHARA HOUSE,
PUTHUVYPU.P.O., KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-582508.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.S.RAJESH SRI.V.P.REMESH
RESPONDENT/S:
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.3.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA-1195/2019.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.V.SREEJA,PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 1195 of 2019
-2-
ORDER
The petitioner is the second accused in
Crime No.1658/2018 of Njarakkal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 r/w Section 34 IPC.
2. The prosecution allegation is
that the petitioner and the other accused
together collected an amount of
Rs.6,50,000/- from the defacto complainant, promising that the defacto complainant would be provided with a job abroad. However, the job as promised was not arranged. The money
was also not repaid.
3. The petitioner has filed this
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Bail Appl..No. 1195 of 2019
4. Heard.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has
opposed the application.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner is involved in five other crimes of similar nature. It
appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is likelihood that the petitioner will repeat similar offences. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the progress of the investigation of this case. Considering the nature and the
gravity of the offences alleged, I am not
Bail Appl..No. 1195 of 2019
-4-
inclined to grant the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner is a habitual offender.
In the result, this application stands
dismissed.
However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
STK
//TRUE COPY//
//P.A. TO JUDGE//
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to a petitioner accused of cheating and the prosecution alleges him as a habitual offender.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary for the progress of investigation given the nature of offences.
Whether the petitioner, being a habitual offender, is inclined to repeat similar offences if granted pre-arrest bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anil Kumar
State of Kerala
Station House Officer, Njarakkal Police Station
Addl.R3 Bageesh
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
