So, if in a case it is established and the Court is convinced that the accused/bail applicant had absconded from India and had gone abroad, after fully knowing about the registration of a non-bailable offence against him and thereafter, he files a bail application under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. while he is still abroad, then it may not be proper exercise of discretion to grant bail in such a case. This is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a bail application under Sec.438, merely because the accused/applicant is abroad at the time of filing of the application. We are answering this factual premised issue only in the context of the issue as to whether it would be right and proper exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. So also, if such an accused had absconded from India and had gone abroad knowing fully well about the registration of a crime in respect of a non bailable offence, then thereafter, though he may technically have the locus standi to maintain a pre-arrest bail plea, but if as a matter of fact, the Court is convinced that he has absconded and fled away from the law enforcement agencies, etc., then it may not be right and proper exercise of jurisdiction to grant interim bail to such an accused who is abroad. {Para 107}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl. Nos. 4421 and 4983 of 2022
Decided On: 11.04.2023
Anu Mathew Vs. State of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Alexander Thomas and C.S. Sudha, JJ.
Author: Alexander Thomas, J.
Citation: MANU/KE/0926/2023.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment