The necessity of custodial interrogation alone is insufficient for granting anticipatory bail; courts must consider the prima facie case and seriousness of allegations.

ORDER :

If custodial interrogation of an accused is not necessary in connection with the investigation of a case, can a court of law grant anticipatory bail in all cases? If the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence alleged in a case is below seven years, whether a court of law can grant bail to an accused in a case without considering the allegation against the accused and the antecedents of the accused? These are the questions to be decided in this case.

2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.49/2025 of Erattupettah Police Station, Kottayam District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 196 (1)(a) and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ' BNS ') and also under Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (for short 'KP Act').

3. The case is registered in connection with a Channel discussion on Janam TV in which the petitioner also participated. Petitioner is a former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Poonjar Constituency. On 05.01.2025, from the residence of the petitioner, he made a statement in the channel discussion. It is extracted in the statement filed by the investigating officer, which is like this: “All Muslims in India are terrorists and communalists, not a single non- terrorist Muslim lives in India, Muslims are looters who plunder the country's wealth. Lakhs of Hindus and Christians have been slaughtered by Muslims to create a Muslim state. All Indian Muslims should go to Pakistan. All Muslims are communal demons and scoundrels.” Based on the above statement in a live telecast discussion on Janam TV, the 2^nd respondent herein filed a complaint, and based on the same, the above crime is registered. The petitioner apprehends arrest in the above case. Hence this bail application is filed.

4. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Adv. P. Vijayabhanu assisted by Adv. Sruthy N. Bhat, for the petitioner, Adv. P. Narayanan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Adv. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, defacto complainant.

5. The learned Senior Counsel, Adv. P. Vijayabhanu argued the matter in detail. The Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is a senior politician in the State and he is aged 74 years. The Senior Counsel submitted that the incident took place during a channel debate in which the co-panelist being fully aware of the temperament of the petitioner, provoked and insinuated him, at the end of which the petitioner on a slip of the tongue and in the heat of the moment ended up saying the statement which resulted in the registration of the above crime. The Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is a senior politician in the State and has been representing the Poonjar Constituency continuously for about 30 years. The Senior Counsel submitted that the nature and temperament of the petitioner are well-known to all Keralites. The Senior Counsel submitted that, even if the petitioner made such a spontaneous reaction, the people in the State would take it lightly. It is also submitted by the Senior Counsel that, immediately after the debate, the petitioner published a Facebook post in which he submitted an apology for making such a statement. The Senior Counsel submitted on behalf of the petitioner an unconditional apology for making such a statement and reiterated that it was a slip of the tongue. The Senior Counsel also submitted that the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged is three years imprisonment or fine or with both. The Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex C