Accused outside of Country – Bail Granted- Kerala HC

Kerala High Court in a recent judgement noted that the accused's absence from the country does not disqualify him from having his anticipatory bail application considered.

The petitioner argued in his bail application that the de facto complainant is merely attempting to blackmail him by filing this false case. He added that while the survivor is free to make allegations against anyone, the statutory authorities are obligated to determine the veracity of the allegation before tarnishing or defaming a person based on an unsubstantiated complaint.

Prosecution argued that the petitioner filed the bail application after fleeing the country and with the intent of remaining outside the jurisdiction and evading the investigation. According to the prosecution's contention, the petitioner's absence from the country disqualifies him from pursuing this application.

Kerala High Court observed that the petitioner's absence from the country does not deprive him of the right to have this court consider his application for anticipatory bail.

High Court further observed by referred the  Sushila Aggarwal & Ors v. State, the Supreme Court had expressly acknowledged that the right of any person protected by Article 21 of the Constitution can be denied only through the legal process. Notably, the Constitutional Bench had stated that Section 438 is one of these procedures and that courts should avoid imposing unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438, particularly when not imposed by the legislature.

D.D – 31 May, 2022

Vijay Babu  v/s. State of Kerala & Anr.