SC: Absence of Independent Witnesses is Not Fatal if Injured Eyewitness Testimony is Sterling  ||  Supreme Court: Prosthetic Limb Costs Must Be Compensated To Restore Victims’ Dignity  ||  Supreme Court: Probate Can be Revoked For Non-Impleadment of Parties and Suppression of Facts  ||  SC: Plaint Cannot be Rejected For Valuation or Court Fee Defects Without Chance to Rectify  ||  SC Rules Government Grants Act Overrides Rent Law, Sets Aside Eviction Proceeding Against Union Govt  ||  SC: Civil Court Has No Jurisdiction in Boundary Dispute Between Maharashtra Panchayat & Municipality  ||  Allahabad HC: Two Criminal Cases Insufficient to Label a Person as 'Goonda' and Harm Reputation  ||  Bom HC: Sprinkling Mustard Without Ill Intent Before a House is Not an Offence under Black Magic Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Preventive Detention Invalid When Based on Speculative Fear of Election Disturbance  ||  Bombay High Court: POSH Act Penalises False Complaints by Women But Not Those Who Instigate Them    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved