Paridhi Arya
Published on June 8, 2022 at 19:03 IST
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Becky Kurian Joseph observed that if accused while applying for Anticipatory Bail is outside the country does not bar him from getting Anticipatory Bail.
The Kerala High Court was hearing the pre-arrest bail application filed by the Actor Vijay Babu in case of rape alleged against him.
The Court granted him Anticipatory Bail and cleared that it was not on the basis of merits of the case.
The accused was alleged to committed offence under Section 376(2) (n), 506 and 323 of Indian Penal Code.
The counsel representing the petitioner in the case contended that the accused booked a flight of May 30 but due to the apprehension that his liberty will be ceased even in airport itself without giving him a chance to apply for Anticipatory Bail.
The accused cancelled his travel but he will be available within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court within 24 hours.
The Additional Director General of Prosecution contended that petitioner is outside India and so debarred from getting Anticipatory Bail.
He further contended that Petitioner firstly flew outside the country and now he knew that police has issued lookout notice against him, even his passport can be impounded so he is willing to come back. His step cannot be considered bonafide prima facie.
The Counsel representing the victim contended that the Petitioner didn’t disclose about his current whereabouts in the application.
The Court after referring the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Other v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [(2020) 5 SCC 1] where constitutional Bench of Apex Court observed that Article 21 of the Constitution is of paramount importance which grants Fundamental Right to personal liberty but which can be restricted through procedure established by law and legislature enacted Section 438 of CrPC
The Court should not impose such restrictions on the scope of Section 438 of CrPC which is not given by the legislature.
The Judge observed, “It is not in the interest of the petitioner, but also in the interest of the victim as well as investigation, that the petitioner be protected from the arrest for a minimum period of time, to enable him to submit to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court without further delay. Accordingly I direct the respondents not to arrest the petitioner for a limited period as mentioned.”