Bail Applications Nos. 915 of 2024 and 949 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. DIAS
Judgment Date: 2024-02-14
Court Decision / Holding: Without prejudice to the petitioners’ right to pursue remedies in accordance with law, these bail applications are dismissed. The court did not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 for cases outside its territorial jurisdiction.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

VIJAYAKUMARI
VIJAYAN PILLAI

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra
Assistant Police Inspector, Economics Offence Wing, Crime Branch, Nagpur, Maharashtra
Station House Officer, Shastamcotta Police Station, Kollam
Latheesh Kumar, S/O Bharathan, Proprietor, M/S S Engineering & Fabrications, Nagpur, Maharashtra

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.B. Pradeep
• Harisankar R
• Hridyalakshmi P.

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Neema T. V., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment disposes of two pre-arrest bail petitions—Bail Appl. Nos. 915/2024 (Vijayan Pillai) and 949/2024 (Vijayakumari)—filed under Section 438 CrPC in relation to Crime No. 295/2024 of the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Nagpur, Maharashtra, for alleged offences under Section 420 IPC. The petitions, though filed in the Kerala High Court, arise from an offence registered in Maharashtra and concern a single underlying crime; hence they were consolidated and heard together as a common order. The court records that it had previously passed transit-bail orders in similar matters (in 2023) and cites Sandeep Varghese v. State of Kerala, 2010 (2) KHC 2881, for the proposition that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction, and that coercive proceedings should be kept in abeyance only for a limited period to allow remedies under law. The petitioners allegedly did not obtain relief under the earlier orders and did not pursue remedies in competent jurisdiction. Consequently, by a common order dated 14.02.2024, the court dismissed both bail petitions under Section 438 CrPC, while noting that the petitioners retain the right to pursue lawful remedies. The decision is rendered by Judge C.S. Dias.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Transit bail doctrine (pre-arrest bail in cases outside territorial jurisdiction)
Territorial jurisdiction principle for bail under CrPC Section 438

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC in Crime No. 295/2024 on grounds of relief from arrest; the cases were consolidated with parallel petitions and the petitioners relied on precedents allowing transit bail in similar contexts pending remedies in appropriate jurisdiction.

Contentions of Respondents

Opposed the bail petitions, asserting lack of territorial jurisdiction and invoking the settled principle that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted by this Court for offences registered outside its territorial jurisdiction; emphasized non-compliance with earlier orders directing remedy in proper forum.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sandeep Varghese v. State of Kerala	2010 (2) KHC 2881	Positive	Court followed the rule stated in this decision that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted by a court for cases outside its territorial jurisdiction, justifying transit bail and eventual dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`83IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 949 OF 2024 CRIME NO.295/2024 OF , ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` VIJAYAKUMARI, AGED 53 YEARS W/O VIJAYAN PILLAI, VILAYIL HOUSE, KANNANAKUZHI MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK., PIN - 690530 BY ADVS. K.B.PRADEEP HARISANKAR R HRIDYALAKSHMI P. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE OF MAHARASTRA, CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ MARG, COLABA, MUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA., PIN - 400005 3THE ASSISTANT POLICE INSPECTOR ECONOMICS OFFENCE WING, CRIME BRANCH, NAGPUR ,MAHARASHTRA., PIN - 440001 4THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SHASTAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM., PIN - 690521 5LATHEESH KUMAR,S/OBHARATHAN,PROPRIETOR M/S.S.S.ENGINEERING&AMP;FABRICATIONS,C/O.PLOTNO.1 18,RAM NAGAR,TELANGKHEDI,NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 440001 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` sr pp sri c s hrithwik ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..915/2024,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -2- B.A.Nos.915 & 949 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 915 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.295/2024 OF , ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` VIJAYAN PILLAI.,AGED 66 YEARS S/O. SANKARA PILLAI, VILAYIL HOUSE, KANNANAKUZHI MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK ., PIN - 690530 BY ADVS. K.B.PRADEEP HARISANKAR R HRIDYALAKSHMI P. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ MARG, COLABA, MUMBAI ,MAHARASTRA., PIN - 400005 3THE ASSISTANT POLICE INSPECTOR ECONOMICS OFFENCE WING, CRIME BRANCH, NAGPUR , MAHARASTRA., PIN - 440001 4THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SHASTAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM., PIN -690521 5LATHEESH KUMAR, S/O BHARATHAN, PROPRIETOR- M/S.S.S.ENGINEERING &AMP; FABRICATIONS,C/O.PLOTNO.118,RAMNAGAR,TELANGKHEDI, NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 440001 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` sr pp smt neema t v ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2024,ALONG WITH Bail Appl..949/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- B.A.Nos.915 & 949 of 2024 ## **COMMON ORDER** The applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’, for short), for orders of pre-arrest bail. As the bail applications arise out of the same crime, they were consolidated, jointly heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in Crime No.295 of 2024 by the Economic Offence Wing, Crime Branch, Nagpur City, Maharashtra, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (‘IPC’, for short). 3. Heard Sri.K.B.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. -4- B.A.Nos.915 & 949 of 2024 4. The petitioners had approached this Court by filing B.A.Nos.10368 and 10639 of 2023 for orders of pre arrest bail for allegedly committing a similar offence, in a crime registered by a different police station in the State of Maharashtra. 5. This Court following the law laid in **Sandeep Varghese v. State of Kerala** [2010 (2) KHC 2881], wherein it is held that this Court cannot pass an order of pre arrest bail in cases which are outside its territorial jurisdiction, granted orders of transit bail to the petitioners for a period of three weeks to workout their remedies in accordance with law, and this Court directed all coercive proceedings as against the petitioners to be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks from the date of order. 6. Notwithstanding the above orders, the petitioners failed to avail the benefit of the order and move the court of -5- B.A.Nos.915 & 949 of 2024 competent jurisdiction, to workout their remedies. Consequently, by order dated 14.02.2024, this Court dismissed the bail applications. 6. In the light of the non compliance of the orders passed by this Court in BA Nos. 10638 of 2023 and 10639 of 2023, I am not inclined to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code, in a case which is registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Without prejudice the right of the petitioners to workout their remedies in accordance with law, these bail applications are dismissed. sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** das -6- B.A.Nos.915 & 949 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10639/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure ATRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.3.2020 IN OS 7/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES BY THE SUB COURT MAVELIKKARA Annexure BA TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/11/22 Annexure CTRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE DATED 15/05/23 ``` -7- B.A.Nos.915 & 949 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 949/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure ATRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.3.2020 IN OS 7/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES BY THE SUB COURT MAVELIKKARA Annexure BA TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/11/22 Annexure CTRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 17-01-2021 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 160 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. ``` ``` Annexure DTRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 11.1.2024 Annexure ETRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15-1-2024 IN BA NO 10638 OF 2023 ``` -8- B.A.Nos.915 & 949 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 915/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure ATRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13 .3.2020 IN OS NO 7/2015 BY THE SUB COURT MAVELIKKARA. Annexure BTRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/11/22 Annexure CTRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 3 RD RESPONDENT DT 17-01-2021 Annexure DTRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 11-01-2024 Annexure ETRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A. NO. 10639 OF 2023 DATED 15-1-2024 ```