SCDRC Upholds Penalty of Rs. 5 Lakh Imposed on Airtel  ||  Delhi HC: Cannot Read WhatsApp Conversation as Evidence Without Mandatory Certificate  ||  Allahabad HC: It’s a Child’s Natural Right to Know and Meet His Parents  ||  Delhi High Court: ICAI Needs to be Enhanced and Strengthened  ||  Del. HC: CGPDTM to Prepare Draft Code of Conduct for Regulation of Patent and Trademark Agents  ||  Kerala High Court: To Constitute Abetment, Intentional Aid by Abettor Must be Shown  ||  SC: Bail Shouldn’t be Opposed for Seriousness of Offence if Prosec. Agency Can’t Ensure Speedy Trial  ||  Allahabad HC: In Consensual Relationships, POCSO Act Being Misused Against Teenagers  ||  Sik. HC: Conviction of a 24-Year-Old for Committing Rape on His Grandmother, Upheld  ||  Bom. HC: Consensual Relationship Between Man and Woman is Not a License to Exploit Partner    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved