Misconception That Anticipatory Bail Could Be Granted If Custodial Interrogation Was Not Required: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that it is a common misconception that anticipatory bail could be granted if custodial interrogation was not required. The Court stated that custodial interrogation was just one factor to consider when deciding on an anticipatory bail application.Justice A. Badharudeen stated that the Court has to consider if a prima facie case was made out against the accused,...
The Kerala High Court held that it is a common misconception that anticipatory bail could be granted if custodial interrogation was not required. The Court stated that custodial interrogation was just one factor to consider when deciding on an anticipatory bail application.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that the Court has to consider if a prima facie case was made out against the accused, the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment while considering anticipatory bail applications.
“Further, even assuming it a case where the accused is not required for custodial interrogation, the same by itself is not a ground for grant of anticipatory bail. In many anticipatory bail matters, one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail.”
The Court passed the above order while considering an anticipatory bail application moved by a 65-year-old school teacher and principal of a tuition center who was allegedly accused of sexually harassing a 9th standard student.
The crime was registered against the accused under alleging sexual harassment and sexual assault under the IPC, POCSO Act, and Section 75 (punishment for cruelty to child) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The specific allegation was that the accused spoke to the victim with sexual overtures and tried to grope her. It was also alleged that the accused inappropriately touched the victim and said that he would kiss her.
Relying upon the Apex Court decision in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arum Kumar C.K. and Another (2022), the Court stated that the High Court should not intervene in an investigation conducted by the investigating officer when serious allegations were made. It said that the investigating officer should have a free hand to continue and complete the investigation. It added that merely because charges were framed, it cannot be presumed that the investigating officer would not need custodial interrogation of the accused.
The Court stated that custodial interrogation was only one relevant aspect to be considered in an anticipatory bail application. It stated that custodial interrogation could be a basis to deny anticipatory bail but the absence of a need for custodial interrogation alone cannot justify granting an anticipatory bail.
“The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.”
The Court ruled that serious and prima facie allegations were made out against the accused.
Dismissing the anticipatory bail application, the Court stated that arrest and custodial interrogation would be required for meaningful investigation.
Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vijaya Bhanu, Advocates P.Vijaya Bhanu, Advocates Adithya Rajeev, S.Parvathi, Safa Navas
Counsel for Respondents: Advocate Suresh B S, Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 329
Case Title: Prabhakaran P. V State Of Kerala
Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 2418 OF 2024
Click here to read/download Order