Pre-arrest bail application by the third accused in a group assault case causing grievous injuries. Considering the gravity of offences, ongoing investigation, need for custodial interrogation and recovery, the court held no exceptional grounds existed and dismissed the application, directing surrender within ten days for interrogation.
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 C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 10795 OF 2023
CRIME NO.1590/2023 OF Kazhakkuttom Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/S:
JAGAN RAJ.J, AGED 25 YEARS S/O JAYARAJ M.A, KARINJA VAYAL PURAYIDAM MENAMKULAM, KAZHAKUTTAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT NEEMA T V
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 10795 OF 2023
2
O R D E R
The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(‘Code’, for short), for an order of pre-arrest bail.
3
BAIL APPL. NO. 10795 OF 2023
was submitted that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected. If the petitioner is let off on bail, it would hamper with the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 10795 OF 2023
4
7. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as follows:
111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia case [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] that the High Court or the Court of Session has to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour.
112 . The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail
BAIL APPL. NO. 10795 OF 2023
5
particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because overimplication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
126 . We deem it appropriate to reiterate and assert that discretion vested in the court in all matters should be exercised with care and circumspection depending upon the facts and circumstances justifying its exercise. Similarly, the discretion vested with the court under Section 438 CrPC should also be exercised with caution and prudence. It is unnecessary to travel beyond it and subject the wide power and discretion conferred by the legislature to a rigorous code of selfimposed limitations.
8. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and
BAIL APPL. NO. 10795 OF 2023
6
another, [(2012) 4 SCC 379], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, an order of pre-arrest bail being an extra ordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Courts has to be properly exercised, after proper application of mind, to decide whether it is a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. The court has to be prima facie satisfied that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime and his liberty is being misused.
7
BAIL APPL. NO. 10795 OF 2023
grounds to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.438 of the Code. Therefore, I hold that this is not a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed.
Nonetheless, I direct that, if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today, he shall be interrogated and, thereafter, be produced before the jurisdictional Court on the date of surrender itself. Then, if the petitioner moves an application for bail, the jurisdictional Court shall, untrammelled by any observations in this order, consider the bail application on its merits and as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioner does not surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer shall be free to arrest the petitioner as if no order has been passed in this case.
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
Rkc/07.02.24
BAIL APPL. NO. 10795 OF 2023
8
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10795/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.1590/2023 OF KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY DISTRICT DATED 4.11.2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, accused in an attempt to murder case with custodial interrogation pending, is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶7
[(2011) 1 SCC 694] · Who else cites this
Sibbia caseReferred
[(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] · Who else cites this
Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and anotherRelied on¶8
[(2012) 4 SCC 379] · Who else cites this
10 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagan Raj.J
State of Kerala
C.S.Dias
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
