The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala has set aside a Kerala High Court order granting anticipatory bail to an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, holding that anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because custodial interrogation is not required. (Sumitha Pradeep vs Arun Kumar CK)
The bench noting that custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail, said, “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."
Facts of the case
The anticipatory bail was granted to the man accused under various sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in the Wayanad district of Kerala.
The appeal was filed by the mother of a victim in a POCSO case against the Kerala High Court order that granted anticipatory bail to the accused.
Court's observations and Judgment
The bench remarked that the observations of the high court are totally unwarranted and had been made overlooking the specific allegations in the FIR.
The bench remarked, “In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest as the Investigating Officer deserves a free hand to take the probe to its logical conclusion."
The bench observed, "In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed 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."
The bench further observed, "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 bench allowing the appeal remarked, "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 custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
