Roopesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala

Dr Kauser Edappagath, J

This application is filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

The applicant is the accused in Crime No.192/2023 of Cherthala Police Station, Alappuzha District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 354, 354D and 506(1) of the I.P.C.

The prosecution case, in short, is that since 2017 onwards, the applicant followed the victim to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite clear indication of dis-interest by her and further threatened that if she marries somebody else, she will be killed and thus committed the offence.

I have heard Sri. Jinu Joseph, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.V.S.Sreejith, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

The law regarding the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power u/s 438 of Cr.P.C could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. In the F.I.Statement, there are clear averments to attract the ingredients of the offence alleged. That apart, the applicant has criminal antecedents. He is involved in several cases, including the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 354 of the I.P.C.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the investigation, it is not a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. could be invoked. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.