The Kerala High Court recently ruled that individuals seeking anticipatory bail must disclose in their petitions whether they are currently in India or abroad [Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors]. The Court stated that failing to provide this information would be considered suppression of material facts.
Justices Anil K. Narendran and P.G. Ajithkumar noted that the location of the accused could significantly influence the court’s decision regarding the bail application. Even if anticipatory bail is granted, it is essential to know the applicant’s whereabouts to impose appropriate conditions in accordance with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The Court highlighted that if an accused person is abroad at the time of applying for pre-arrest bail, this critical fact must be disclosed, as it could substantially affect the court’s decision-making process and the imposition of relevant conditions. The judges directed the High Court Registry to include a mandatory field in anticipatory bail applications to indicate whether applicants are in India or abroad when filing.
The ruling came after a single judge noted that some applicants were intentionally concealing their foreign status while submitting anticipatory bail petitions. The Division Bench remarked that if an applicant is overseas, it could impede law enforcement’s ability to apprehend them, especially if bail is denied. The judges pointed out that, in many instances, it was only later revealed during subsequent bail applications that the accused had been abroad all along.
To emphasize the importance of this disclosure, the Court referenced a previous judgment in Anu Mathew v. State of Kerala, where it was determined that courts could entertain anticipatory bail applications from individuals abroad. However, it was noted that knowing the applicant’s location is vital for correctly imposing conditions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Division Bench further noted that Section 482 of the BNS, analogous to the CrPC, requires accused individuals to be available for police interrogation and prohibits them from leaving the country without the court’s permission. Therefore, not disclosing the accused’s whereabouts could lead to improper conditions being imposed, making transparent information crucial.
In conclusion, the Court stated that failing to disclose whether an accused person is abroad when filing anticipatory bail applications constitutes suppression of material facts. The matter was disposed of, with directions for the Registry to add a field for applicants to indicate their whereabouts.
Deputy Solicitor General of India T.C. Krishna represented the Union, while Special Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan appeared for the State.
