The court held that limited custody is sufficient for investigation in cases of serious allegations, prioritizing the need for pre-arrest bail based on circumstances.

O R D E R

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

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1243 of 2025 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered for the offence punishable under section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’).

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had cut and removed a Vaka tree standing on the side of a public road and thereby caused a loss of Rs.50,000/- to the Government and thus committed the offences alleged.

4. Smt.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged has not occurred. It was also submitted that the branches of the tree caused danger to the public and repeated complaints were given by Sri.Ayoob Khan, the employer of the petitioner, and subsequently, in the presence of the de facto complainant herself, the tree was cut and removed by other persons and petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as an accused for reasons unknown to him.

5. Sri.Prasanth M P, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the petitioner had cut and removed the tree, causing a loss Rs.50,000/- to the state exchequer. It was also submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the tree cut and removed.

6. Petitioner claims to be an employer of Sri.Ayoob Khan, who has filed repeated complaints for cutting and removing the branches of a tree standing on a public road. Subsequently, the tree was found to be cut and removed. Petitioner is being proceeded against alleging offence under Section 303 (2) BNS .

7. Though normally recovery of stolen articles is necessary, considering the nature of allegations and the surrounding circumstances, I am of the view that limited custody would be sufficient for the purpose of investigation.

8. InSushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 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.

9. In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary. 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 petitioner is not required. Further, having regard to the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 10.07.2025 at 10.00 am under limited custody as observed in Sushila Aggarwal (supra) and shall subject himself to interrogation.

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

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

(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

(e) Petitio