Facts of the Case

This is Bail Appl. No. 5440 of 2023 before the Kerala High Court, filed under Section 438 CrPC by Dr. V.B. Ajayakumar, a partner of M/s Triveni Ayurveda, and his wife Asha Ajayakumar. They sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Crime No. 859/2023 of Sector 8 Police Station, Faridabad, Haryana, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC. The allegation was that the petitioners collected Rs.37,54,000/- from a complainant on the promise of setting up an Ayurveda manufacturing facility and making him a partner, but neither did so nor refunded the money. Annexures included a partnership deed, a GST registration certificate dated 25.02.2019, a retirement deed and a reconstituted partnership deed, produced only to show the genuineness of the underlying business. This is not a GST dispute — the governing law is the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Kerala High Court had jurisdiction to decide an anticipatory bail plea when the FIR was registered outside Kerala.
  2. Whether interim protection from arrest should be granted meanwhile.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Apprehended arrest in the Faridabad FIR and sought anticipatory bail from the High Court within whose jurisdiction they reside.
  • Relied on partnership and GST documents to argue the transaction was a genuine business dealing, not cheating.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State, through the Senior Public Prosecutor, opposed the anticipatory bail application.

Court Order / Findings

  • Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that since the crime was registered by a police station beyond the Kerala High Court's jurisdiction, a proper adjudication could not be made by that Court.
  • The petitioners were directed to approach the jurisdictional court (in Haryana) for anticipatory bail.
  • The bail application was disposed of granting one month's time from 11.08.2023, with a clarification that the petitioners shall not be arrested during that period.

Important Clarification

The order turns purely on territorial jurisdiction for anticipatory bail applications — a High Court will ordinarily decline to entertain a Section 438 CrPC plea where the FIR is registered outside its territory, granting only short-term protection to allow the applicant to move the correct court. No GST question was examined; the GST certificate was incidental evidence about the business, nothing more.

Sections Involved

  • Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Sections 406, 420 and 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits — the Court granted only interim protection from arrest for one month so the petitioners could approach the jurisdictional court in Haryana.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Case No.: Bail Appl. No. 5440 of 2023
Coram: Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Date: 11 August 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.