The court held that custodial interrogation is not necessary despite serious allegations, allowing pre-arrest bail based on the circumstances of the case.

ORDER :

1. This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’).

2. Petitionersin B.A. No.5582/25 are accused Nos.1 to 6 while petitioners in B.A. No.6028/2025 are accused Nos.10 to 13 in Crime No.147/2025 of Nattukal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023. The 5^th accused, who is the 5^th petitioner in B.A. No.5582/2025 has already been arrested.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused had, on 09.04.2025, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted him and others and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have been falsely arrayed as accused and have no involvement in the alleged crime.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioners are alleged to have assaulted the de facto complainant and others on 09.04.2025 after trespassing into their house. It was further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and that custodial interrogation is essential. Learned Public Prosecutor, further submitted that the 5^th accused, in B.A.No.5582/2025, has already been arrested and is in custody.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

8. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 274, it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial investigation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial investigation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation. In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary.

9. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Considering the nature of allegations and also the nature of offences, this Court is of the view that petitioners are entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.

10. As far as, petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 in B.A. No.5582/2025 and petitioners in B.A. No.6028/2025 are concerned, these applications are allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 in B.A. No.5582/2025 and petitioners in B.A. No.6028/25, shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 04.06.2025 and shall subject themselves to interrogation.

(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the said petitioners, then, they shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.

(c) The said petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.

(d) The said petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence.

(e) The said petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.

(f) The said petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

11.