Shyam Murali P & Vigesh P.V v. The Station House Officer, Panamaram Police Station & State of Kerala

## `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. 675 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.3/2024 OF PANAMARAM POLICE STATION, WAYANAD ``` ## `PETITIONERS:` ``` 1SHYAM MURALI P, AGED 32 YEARS PALAKKAPILLIL HOUSE, MANANTHAVADY P.O WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN – 670645 2VIGESH P.V, AGED 40 YEARS S/O VISWANATHAN, PULIKKAPPARAMBIL PANAMARAM, WAYANAD, PIN – 670721 ``` ## `BY ADV KAVERY S THAMPI` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PANAMARAM POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN – 670721 2STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.675/2024 -:2:- Dated this the 14[th] day of February,2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(‘Code’, for short), for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.2 & 3 in Crime No.3/2024 of Panamaram Police Station, Wayanad, registered against the accused (four in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The crux of the prosecution is that: the accused Nos.1 to 4 propagated through Atulyanivedyam Trust Private Limited that they would construct houses for persons from economically backward background and collected a total amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, including Rs.34,500/- from the complainant. However, the accused did not construct B.A.No.675/2024 -:3:- the house or return the amount so collected. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Smt. Kavery S Thampi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioners have not received any money from the de-facto complainant or any such person. It is actually the first accused who has received the money. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary. The petitioners are willing to co-operate with the Investigating Officer and abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed B.A.No.675/2024 -:4:- the application. She contended that the second accused is the mastermind in the crime. The petitioners 2 & 3 have misled the public and received money on propagating that they would construct houses for the persons hailing from financially backward backgrounds. However, the accused siphoned off the money for their own use. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary and the recovery is to be effected. If the petitioners are granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper with the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. In **Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra** [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: **111.** No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of B.A.No.675/2024 -:5:- anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia case [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] that the High Court or the Court of Session has to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour. **112** . The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because overimplication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two B.A.No.675/2024 -:6:- factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. **126** . We deem it appropriate to reiterate and assert that discretion vested in the court in all matters should be exercised with care and circumspection depending upon the facts and circumstances justifying its exercise. Similarly, the discretion vested with the court under Section 438 CrPC should also be exercised with caution and prudence. It is unnecessary to travel beyond it and subject the wide power and discretion conferred by the legislature to a rigorous code of self-imposed limitations. ## 8. In **Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and** **Anr.** [(2012) 4 SCC 379] the Hon’ble 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 B.A.No.675/2024 -:7:- 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. 9. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submission made across the Bar, especially taking into account the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the economic offences alleged against the petitioners, that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary and that the recovery is to be effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners have not made out any exceptional circumstances entitling them to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. Therefore, I hold that this is not a fit case to grant orders of pre-arrest bail. 10. Nonetheless, I direct that, if the petitioners B.A.No.675/2024 -:8:- surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today, they shall be interrogated and, thereafter, be produced before the jurisdictional Court on the date of surrender itself. Then, if the petitioners move an application for bail, the jurisdictional Court shall, untrammelled by any observations in this order, consider the bail application on its merits and as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioners do not surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer shall be free to arrest the petitioners as if no order has been passed in this case. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/14.02.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge