Non-requirement of custodial interrogation not sole ground to grant anticipatory bail: Kerala High Court

Anticipatory bail cannot be granted solely on the ground that custodial interrogation of the accused is not required, the Kerala High Court recently said while denying pre-arrest bail to a teacher in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) [Prabhakaran P v State of Kerala & Anr].The Court emphasized that various factors including existence of a prima facie case, nature of the offence and severity of punishment must be considered while considering a bail application and non-requirement of custodial interrogation cannot be the sole criterion for granting anticipatory bail.Justice A Badharudeen opined that there is a common misunderstanding that anticipatory bail should be granted if custodial interrogation is not required. He stressed that this is just one aspect to be considered and should not be the deciding factor while granting bail."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," the Court said..The Court was considering an anticipatory bail plea filed by a 65-year-old teacher (accused) and principal of a tuition center, accused of sexually harassing a 9th-standard student (victim). He was booked for various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which penalises cruelty to child. The Senior Counsel representing the accused, submitted that the man was innocent and that in the 38 years of running the tuition centre, no such allegations had been made against him.However, the counsel for the victim and the public prosecutor opposed the bail, arguing that the materials on record showed a prima facie case against the accused necessitating custodial interrogation to uncover the full extent of the crimes..The Court noted that arrest and custodial investigation of the accused are crucial for a meaningful investigation and for establishing the alleged charges. Therefore, even when custodial interrogation is not necessary, its absence alone would not be a sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail.The Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arum Kumar CK & Anr and stated that, "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 noted that the victim suffered severe trauma, which had negatively affected her studies and therefore, there were sufficient reasons to deny pre-arrest bail.Hence, it dismissed the plea. .The accused was represented by Senior Advocate P Vijaya Bhanu along with advocates Adithya Rajeev, S Parvathi and Safa Navas. Advocate Suresh BS represented the victim.Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George represented the state..[Read Order]