Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1712 (KER)

Prince S/o Jose v. State of Kerala

2025-06-25

A.BADHARUDEEN

body2025
ORDER : 1. This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023 moved by accused Nos. 4 and 5 in Crime No.VC3/2025/CRE of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Central Range, Ernakulam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the report along with relevant documents placed by the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. 3. The prosecution allegation in precise form as per the report of the Investigating Officer is as under; “In pursuance of common intention of A1 to A6, all the accused conspired among themselves to commit a criminal act in pursuance of the same, the 2nd accused filed a false complaint to the Education Department against the complainant, who is a School Head Master set to retire on 31-03-2025 alleging embezzlement of Government funds allocated for school projects. Later A2 along with A3, coerced the complainant to meet A1, an educational department official in Thiruvananthapuram. Accordingly, the complainant met A1 on 27-02-2025 at Hotel Town Tower, Thiruvananthapuram and while being there, A1 threatened to withhold the complainant's pensionary benefits unless he complied with their demands and pay money to settle the matter and further threatened to damage his image and personal life. In consequence of the same, the complainant transferred 25,000/- to A2 and 2,25,000/- to A3 via GPay. After that, A1 on 3-3-2025, through the mobile phone of A2, further demanded 15 lakhs as bribe, which was later reduced to 5 lakhs on 17-3-2025 due to financial constraints expressed by the complainant. Thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.” 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners are PTA members of the school and in the FIR, there is no specific allegation raised against them. It is submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are ready to co- operate with the investigation and also ready to obey the conditions imposed by this Court. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that in this case, prima facie, the role of A4 and A5 (accused No: 4 & 5) is made out and the trial court dismissed the anticipatory bail, plea holding that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. 6. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that in this case, prima facie, the role of A4 and A5 (accused No: 4 & 5) is made out and the trial court dismissed the anticipatory bail, plea holding that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. 6. To be on the crux of the matter, it is true that there is demand of bribe at the instance of the 1 st accused and the prosecution allegation is that the demand was made as part of conspiracy hatched in between accused Nos.1 to 6. On perusal of the records, it could be gathered that accused Nos.1,2, 3 and 6 were arrested on 28.03.2025 and released on bail thereafter. 7. Having gone through the allegations herein, whereby the petitioners were roped into this crime, it could not be held at this stage that they are innocent persons. Therefore, the matter would require detailed investigation by questioning the petitioners. But going through the records of the case, custodial interrogation, after detaining them in custody, is found to be unwarranted. In view of the above, the petitioners can be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing conditions. 8. Before parting, it is necessary to address a legal issue brought to the notice of this Court while hearing the matter. It is noticed that the learned Special Judge considered the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners and dismissed the same on merits. It is true that as per Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023, Sessions Court and High Court are having power to consider anticipatory bail plea generally. But the said jurisdicition in cases involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘The PC Act’ for short) is vested in the High Court. It is true that an Additional Sessions Judge is holding the post of a Special Court under the PC Act. But the power conferred upon the Special Judge is not that of a Sessions Judge and the Special Judge under the PC Act is empowered to try the cases by following the procedure for warrant trial. Even though Special Judge is an Additional Sessions Judge, while acting as a Special Judge, the Special Judge is empowered to conduct warrant trial alone and not sessions trial. Even though Special Judge is an Additional Sessions Judge, while acting as a Special Judge, the Special Judge is empowered to conduct warrant trial alone and not sessions trial. Therefore, the Special Judge under the PC Act could not be designated as a Sessions Judge so as to consider anticipatory bail application, by invoking power under Section 482 of BNSS , in offences involving PC Act. It is relevant to note that an original petition (criminal) has been pending before this Court to consider the said legal issue, elaborately. As of now, the Special Judge has no jurisdictional power to deal with anticipatory bail application. Therefore, there shall be a direction to all Special Judges under the PC Act not to entertain anticipatory bail applications hereafter, till the disposal of the original petition(criminal) pending before this Court and the decision therein will hold the field, thereafter. 9. Coming back, in view of the discussion, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, by imposing conditions, with direction to the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer for two days for questioning on 04.07.2025 and 05.07.2025 in between 10.00 am to 3.00 pm., for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, this petition stands allowed. The petitioners are enlarged on bail on the following conditions: i. The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on 04.07.2025 and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioners for two days in between 10.00 am to 03.00 pm on 04.07.2025 and 05.07.2025. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioners before the Jurisdictional Court on the date of arrest itself. ii. On such production, Jurisdictional Court shall release the petitioners on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) each, by themselves and by two sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court. iii. The petitioners shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so. iv. The petitioners shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation, in any manner. v. The petitioners shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement alone is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. iv. The petitioners shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation, in any manner. v. The petitioners shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement alone is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to all Special Judges under the PC Act, for information and compliance.