Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that anticipatory bail, being an extraordinary privilege, can only be granted in exceptional circumstances, and in cases involving grave allegations, custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation and the Investigating Officer deserves a free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, Karthikeyan @ P.S. Karthik, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.10 of 2025 of Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District. The case was registered under Sections 62 r/w 64(1), 74, 75(2), 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (BNS), and Section 7 r/w 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). According to the prosecution, on 04.01.2025, the accused visited the complainant’s house and handed Rs.5,000/- to the minor victim. When the victim contacted her father, he instructed her not to allow the accused inside. Despite this, at around 2:45 p.m., the accused forcibly entered, assaulted the victim, pushed her down, bolted the door, and attempted to commit rape. On hearing her cries, neighbours rushed, causing the accused to flee.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated due to prior disputes with the defacto complainant. It was contended that the FIR was lodged with a three-day delay, which raised doubts about the prosecution's version. The counsel further argued that there was no material evidence indicating any attempt to commit rape.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, asserting the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation to ensure a proper investigation. The prosecution highlighted that the delay was explained, as the complainant returned from Ahmedabad only on 06.01.2025 and filed the complaint on 07.01.2025.
Observations of the Court:
The Court perused the FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim and noted that the victim was a minor aged 17 years. The Court observed that "it is trite that among other considerations which the Court has to take into account in deciding whether bail should be granted in a non-bailable offence is the nature and gravity of the offence."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding the delay, holding that "it cannot, therefore, be asserted that the Defacto Complainant has failed to provide any explanation for the delay." The Court further noted that pre-trial imprisonment cannot be used as a substitute for the punishment without the scrutiny of the evidence by the Trial Court, but, at the same time, in a case where a girl was in such a situation, as referred to above, grant of bail to the Petitioner, at this stage, may also have an adverse impact on the society.
The Court emphasized that in a case containing serious allegations, the Investigating Officer deserves a free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. The Court also stressed the importance of custodial interrogation, observing that the investigation officer who has been prevented from subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out prima facie substance in the allegations which are of extreme serious in nature.
The Court held that anticipatory bail, the extraordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie convinced that the Petitioner is enrobed in the crime and unlikely to misuse the liberty granted. The Court found that the necessity for custodial interrogation was paramount in this case, and anticipatory bail could not be granted.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Karthikeyan @ P.S. Karthik vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 1964 of 2025
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy
Advocate for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
