Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory  ||  NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction    

Qaboos T vs. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/46798) - (High Court of Kerala) (27 Jun 2024)

Order of pre-arrest bail being an extra ordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional cases

MANU/KE/2183/2024

Criminal

Present applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for orders of pre-arrest bail. The Petitioners are the accused 3 and 4 in case registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution allegation against the accused is that they induced the de facto complainant to invest money on the assurance that they would pay him a profit. However, the accused did not pay the profit or return the money.

In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another, 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.

On of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly on comprehending the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the economic offences alleged against the petitioners that the prima facie material to establish the petitioners involvement in the crimes, that the petitioners' custodial interrogation is necessary and the recovery is to be effected, present Court is not satisfied that, the Petitioners have made out any valid ground to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Hence, present is not a fit case to grant the petitioners orders of pre- arrest bail. Applications are dismissed.

Tags :   PRE-ARREST BAIL  GRANT  DISCRETION

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved