The Kerala High Court has ruled that converting an interim bail into an absolute bail on the sole ground that an arrest was declared illegal is legally impermissible. The Court held that such a step would effectively prevent any subsequent lawful arrest by the investigating agency and therefore cannot be sustained in law. Justice A. Badharudeen observed that once an arrest is declared illegal, the accused reverts to the stage before the arrest. In that situation, making an interim bail absolute results in shielding the accused from lawful custody, which is erroneous and without legal foundation.
The matter arose from a vigilance and anti-corruption case involving allegations against an Industries Extension Officer. The officer, along with others, was accused of abusing his official position while handling subsidy loans intended for women below the poverty line. It was alleged that he misappropriated funds, used forged documents, and sanctioned subsidies to ineligible beneficiaries, causing a financial loss exceeding ₹1.14 crores. He was arrested, but the Special Judge later found the arrest to be illegal as it did not comply with the procedure prescribed under law. On that basis, the court granted interim bail, which was then converted into absolute bail the following day.
When the accused later approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, he argued that since the earlier arrest had been declared illegal and the interim bail was made absolute, he should not face the possibility of re-arrest. The High Court, however, disagreed. Referring to established legal precedent, it reiterated that once an arrest is invalidated, the accused is free from custody but does not enjoy permanent immunity from lawful arrest. The Court noted that the Special Judge had erred in converting the interim bail into absolute bail, as this approach essentially placed the accused beyond the reach of future investigation.
The Court emphasized that in cases where an arrest is declared illegal, the correct position is to treat the accused as if he were still at the pre-arrest stage, leaving the authorities free to carry out a lawful arrest in accordance with law. It cautioned that allowing the interim bail to be made absolute in such circumstances would create a legal shield against proper investigation and allow the accused to indefinitely evade accountability.
The judgment further highlighted that pre-arrest bail or anticipatory bail is intended only for exceptional circumstances such as false implication, frivolous charges, or malicious prosecution. Relying on established principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court found that no such exceptional grounds existed in the present case. The allegations involved serious misuse of public funds and fraudulent conduct, and there was nothing to suggest the charges were fabricated or motivated.
On this basis, the High Court dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail. It directed the accused to surrender before the investigating officer and cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation. The Court made it clear that if the accused failed to do so, the investigating agency would be free to proceed in accordance with the law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.