High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed with directions (see cou...

Shajan Skariah v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.23279 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-07-19
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed; petitioner to furnish address and personal email to the 3rd respondent within two days. The 3rd respondent or subordinate officers may issue a notice under Section 41A CrPC or inform that a non-bailable offence is registered against the petitioner, after giving ten days’ time. After ten days, investigations may proceed in accordance with law. The order does not apply to the case already filed as B.A. No. 5829/2023. The court clarifies that the order is not a precedent and is confined to the peculiar facts of this case.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed with directions (see court_decision) and with a caution that the order is not a general precedent; used to guide action in peculiar facts of the case.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shajan Skariah

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Home Secretary, Government of Kerala
  • State Police Chief/Director General of Police
  • Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch
  • Station House Officer, Cyber Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S. Rajeev
  • • V. Vinay
  • • M.S. Aneer
  • • Sarath K.P.
  • • Prerith Philip Joseph
  • • Anil Kumar C.R.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • T. A. Shaji

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shajan Skariah, a resident of Thiruvananthapuram, filed WP(C) No. 23279 of 2023 seeking a mandamus to restrain police action against him without giving him a fair opportunity to explain his stand and without complying with the directions in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The petitioner also sought a direction that arrest should not be made without issuing notice under Section 41A CrPC, arguing that the police have repeatedly arrested him despite not providing the required opportunity and in light of the apex court’s guidance in Satender Kumar Antil. The court recounted that the petitioner challenged a bail order in Crime No. 899/2023 of Elamakkara Police Station and noted the apex court’s intervening direction not to arrest for two weeks. The petitioner claimed there are over 107 cases against him across the state and that he does not know the specific case numbers or offenses, hampering his ability to seek legal remedies. The DGP opposed a blanket rule, warning that general orders could hinder law enforcement. The court held that, given the peculiar facts, investigators may issue notice under Section 41A CrPC or inform the petitioner of registered non-bailable offenses within ten days, after which normal procedures resume, and directed the petitioner to provide an address and email. The order is limited in scope and not a precedent.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 41A CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that police officers should not arrest him without giving a reasonable opportunity to explain his stand and must follow the directives derived from Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. He seeks directions to ensure arrest, where warranted, is preceded by notice under Section 41A CrPC, or at least a prior notice of non-bailable offences, enabling him to secure legal remedies. He emphasizes his lack of knowledge about case numbers/offences in over 107 registered cases, which impedes bail applications.

Contentions of Respondents

The DGP opposed broad, generic directions, arguing that a blanket order would hamper policing and investigation. He contends that 41A CrPC notices must be case-specific and cannot be ordered as a generic rule; the court cannot micromanage arrest decisions on a statewide scale.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors(2022) 10 SCC 51PositiveCited to support the principle that arrest should be preceded by notice and that courts can direct compliance with Satender Kumar Antil’s directives.
D.K. Basu v. State of West BengalAIR 1997 SC 610Mentioned OnlyExhibited in Appendix; not discussed in detail in the judgment.
Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar(2014) 8 SCC 273Mentioned OnlyExhibited in Appendix; not elaborated in the judgment.
Satender Kumar Antil v Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors(2023) LIVELAW SC 233Mentioned OnlyAppears in Appendix as a reference; not part of the main reasoning.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Shajan Skariah v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 23279 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** SHAJAN SKARIAH AGED 51 YEARS S/O SCARIA, RESIDING AT NO 14, HIGH LAND PARK, MLA ROAD, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695043 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER SARATH K.P. PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|STATE OF KERALA| |---|---| ||REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001| |2|HOME SECRETARY| ||GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001| |3|STATE POLICE CHIEF/DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE| ||POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001| |4|ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE| ||CRIME BRANCH, POLICE HEADQUARTERS,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001| |5|STATION HOUSE OFFICER| ||CYBER POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,| ||PIN - 695033| WP(C) NO.23279 OF 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** SRI.T A SHAJI,DGP SRI. P NARAYANAN,PP SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, PP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.23279 OF 2023 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **-----------------------------W.P.(C)No.23279 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of July, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers: _“i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to give directions to his subordinate officers to not to arrest the petitioner without giving sufficient opportunity to explain his stand and without complying the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51._ _ii. To issue writ of mandamus directing the 3[rd] respondent to issue necessary directions to his subordinate officers to not to arrest the petitioner without issuing notice under Section_ WP(C) NO.23279 OF 2023 4 _41A CrPC._ _iii. To issue writ of mandamus directing the 2[nd] respondent to issue necessary directions as contemplated in the decision Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51._ _iv. To issue any other writ or direction this Hon’ble Court deems fit on the facts of the case.”[SIC]_ 2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court brought to the notice of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that, certain allegations are made against a Member of Legislative Assembly and he is not impleaded in this case and therefore, this Court will not entertain this writ petition. At this stage, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, he is not pressing those allegations in the writ petition. WP(C) NO.23279 OF 2023 5 3. The main prayer in this writ petition is to issue a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to give direction to his subordinate officers, not to arrest the petitioner without giving sufficient opportunity to explain his stand and without complying the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others** [2022 (10) SCC 51]. The second prayer is to issue appropriate direction to the 3[rd] respondent to instruct his subordinate officers not to arrest the petitioner without issuing notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. The third prayer is to issue a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to issue necessary directions as contemplated in **Satender Kumar** 's case (supra). 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for WP(C) NO.23279 OF 2023 6 the petitioner and Adv.T.A.Shaji, learned Director General of Prosecution (DGP). 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The counsel submitted that the petitioner approached the Apex Court against the order passed by this Court in a bail application in Crime No.899/2023 of Elamakkara Police Station and the Apex Court directed, not to arrest the petitioner for a period of two weeks. It is the case of the petitioner that, he got information that more than 107 cases are registered against him all over the State and the petitioner is not aware of the crime numbers and the offences alleged in those cases. It is submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to approach the competent court to avail WP(C) NO.23279 OF 2023 7 his legal remedies. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there may be a direction to issue notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. before taking any coercive steps. The DGP seriously opposed the above submission. The DGP submitted that, such a general order may not be issued by this Court and that will create problem to the investigating officers. The DGP also submitted that, if notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. is issued, there will be problem in arresting the petitioner in appropriate cases. 6. This Court considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondents. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the cases registered against the petitioner. I make it clear that, if any case is registered WP(C) NO.23279 OF 2023 8 against the petitioner by the police authorities, the Investigating officers concerned are free to proceed in accordance with law. The counsel appearing for the petitioner and the DGP submitted that, in one case the petitioner already approached this Court by filing a bail application and that bail application is pending as B.A.No.5829/2023. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, he is not aware of the case numbers and the offences alleged against him and therefore, he is not in a position to approach a court of law with an application for bail. I think there is some force in this argument. The petitioner says that, more than 107 cases are registered against him. The petitioner is not aware of the offences alleged against him in those cases WP(C) NO.23279 OF 2023 9 and even the crime numbers and police stations. If that be the case, I am of the considered opinion that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there can be a direction to the Investigating officers in the cases registered against the petitioner as on today, to issue notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. or a notice informing that a case is registered against the petitioner with non bailable offences. This can be done within ten days from today. The petitioner shall give the address where he will be available and also his personal E-mail address to the 3[rd] respondent. After issuing notice, if the period mentioned in the notice is over, the Investigating officer can proceed in accordance with law. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in WP(C) NO.23279 OF 2023 10 the following manner: i. Petitioner shall furnish the address where he will be available and his personal E-mail address also to the 3[rd] respondent, within two days from today. ii. The 3[rd] respondent or his subordinate officers can issue notice either under Section 41A Cr.P.C or a notice informing that, non bailable offence is registered against the petitioner in the police station concerned, after giving ten days time to the petitioner. iii. After ten days, the Investigating officer can proceed in accordance with law. iv. This order is not applicable to the case in which the petitioner already filed B.A.No.5829/2023. WP(C) NO.23279 OF 2023 11 v. I make it clear that, this order need not be treated as a precedent to any other cases and this order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO.23279 OF 2023 12 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23279/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 702/2023 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM EXHIBIT-P2 A COPY OF THE FACEBOOK POST DATED 06.07.2023 EXHIBIT-P3 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN D.K. BASU VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL REPORTED IN AIR 1997 SC 610 EXHIBIT-P4 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ARNESH KUMAR V STATE OF BIHAR REPORTED IN (2014) 8 SCC 273 EXHIBIT-P5 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS DATED 11.07.2022 REPORTED IN (2022) 10 SCC 51 EXHIBIT-P6 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2023 IN SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS REPORTED IN 2023 LIVELAW (SC) 233 EXHIBIT-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.06.2023 SUBMITTED TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CYBER POLICE STATION EXHIBIT-P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROGRAM AIRED IN YOUTUBE RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE