Non-Requirement Of Custodial Interrogation By Itself Not A Ground For Granting Anticipatory Bail: Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court pointed out a “serious misconception of law” and observed that the non-requirement of custodial interrogation by itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.
The Bench denied anticipatory bail to a principal/teacher accused of sexually assaulting a 9th-grade student. The Court explained that the prima facie case against the accused and the nature and severity of an offence should be considered while considering an anticipatory bail application.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “ 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.”
Sr. Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu represented the petitioner, while Sr. PP Renjit George appeared for the respondents.
The 65-year-old accused was charged under Sections 354A(1)(9i), 354A(1) (ii) and 354 of the IPC, Sections 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(f)(p) and 12 r/w 11(i), 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
The accused had allegedly stated certain words with sexual overtures and caught hold of the victim, who managed to save herself. While the victim was getting out of the class, the accused had also allegedly fondled her breast and repeatedly said that he would kiss the victim.
The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arum Kumar C.K. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529) which stressed that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases with serious allegations of sexual offences, especially when it involves the safety and well-being of minors.
“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 explained.
The Court stated that when “the victim girl is traumatized to such a high degree that her academic pursuits have been adversely impacted alone,” coupled with the legislative intent of the POCSO Act, were sufficient to dissuade a Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in granting pre-arrest bail.
Consequently, the Bench applied the ratio laid down in Sumitha Pradeep’s case (supra). It held that the accused could not be released on anticipatory bail, since the allegations were prima facie made out. The defacto complainant lodged the complaint on the day itself “where arrest and custodial interrogation of the accused are necessary to accomplish meaningful investigation and eventful prosecution.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail application.
Cause Title: Prabhakaran P. v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/36950)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Sr. Advocate P.Vijaya Bhanu; Advocates Adithya Rajeev, S.Parvathi and Safa Navas
Respondents: Sr. PP Renjit George; Advocate Suresh B S (Chirakkara)