Failure To Disclose That Accused Is Abroad In Anticipatory Bail Application Amounts To Suppression of Material Facts: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court observed that failure to disclose that the accused is abroad at the time of filing anticipatory bail application would amount to the suppression of material facts.
The Court was hearing a Petition filed by the accused invoking the provisions under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for an order of pre-arrest bail. The said crime is registered against them and two others, alleging the commission of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice PG Ajithkumar observed, “…where the accused person is abroad at the time of making an application for pre-arrest bail under sub-section (1) of Section 482 of BNSS, the said material fact that possesses the potential to significantly influence the decision-making process of the Court and the imposition of conditions as in clauses (i), (iii), etc. of sub-section (2) of Section 482 of BNSS, has to be disclosed in such an application, failing which it would amount to suppression of materials facts from the notice of the court.”
The Court mentioned the decision in Anu Mathew (2023) where according to the Court it was held, “an anticipatory bail court has jurisdiction to entertain and consider a pre-arrest bail plea filed under sub-section (1) of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 even if the applicant accused is abroad at the time of filing of the application.”
“Since the cardinal purpose of bail is the security for the appearance of the accused persons, on which he is released pending trial or investigation, etc., the Courts have an obligation, especially where the accused is abroad at the time of making the application and at the time when the plea is urged before the Court, to consider as to whether conditions as in clauses (i), (iii), etc. of sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., i.e., the accused person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer, as and when required; the accused person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; etc. are to be imposed.”, the Court noted further.
The Court mentioned the decision in Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha (2024) where according to the Court the Supreme Court directed, “the details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which has already been decided; the details of any bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect; etc. have to be mandatorily mentioned in bail applications filed in courts.”
The Court directed its registry to have a compulsory field in the bail application module for all pre-arrest bail applications to ascertain whether the applicant accused was in India or abroad at the time of making the application.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the JPP.
Cause Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:73097)
