Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Judge, J
Petitioner – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Pre-arrest bail application|Crime No.376 of 2025
For the Appellant:Counsel for the petitioner
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Courts have discretion in granting anticipatory bail, considering the nature of allegations and necessity for custodial interrogation.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Pre-arrest bail application - Application for bail filed in the context of serious allegations of robbery and theft - The court emphasized the need to assess the nature and gravity of offences, role of the applicant, and overall case facts regarding anticipatory bail. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Courts discretion in granting bail must consider circumstances and allegations, including if custodial interrogation is necessary - The court found that the State failed to demonstrate the necessity for custodial interrogation in this case. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, first accused in Crime No.376 of 2025, accused of robbery of a vehicle and theft, challenging the nature of allegations linked to his relationship with the complainants. (Para 3, 5)
Findings of Court:
The petitioner's arguments were deemed plausible enough to warrant pre-arrest bail, affirming the importance of judicial discretion in similar requests. (Para 6)
Issues: The court examined whether custodial interrogation was necessary and the implications of the nature of allegations for the grant of anticipatory bail. (Paras 8, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the authority to grant anticipatory bail should incorporate comprehensive judicial assessment, particularly in cases where allegations are serious but do not warrant custodial interrogation. (Paras 9)
Result: Bail application allowed under specified conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the allegations against the petitioner. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the nature of allegations and bail. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. court's considerations and findings regarding anticipatory bail. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. conditions laid down for granting bail. (Para 10) |
ORDER
This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 .
2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.376 of 2025 of Chavakkad Police Station, Thrissur District; registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 131, 115(2), 118(1), 109, 309(4), 309(6), and 351(3) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’). During the course of investigation, the offence under Section 109 of BNS has been deleted.
3. According to the prosecution, petitioner, along with the other accused, assaulted the defacto complainant and committed theft of the vehicle bearing No.KL-16-K-7515, a Samsung phone apart from an amount of Rs.49,000/-, and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Petitioner was involved in another crime as Crime No.321 of 2025 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur, registered at the instance of the wife of the defacto complainant herein. In the said crime, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner by an order dated 27.06.2025 in B.A. No.5574 of 2025. The present crime is initiated alleging that petitioner had committed the offence of robbery of a vehicle. The allegations in Crime No.321 of 2025 of Pavaratty Police Station and Crime No.376 of 2025 of Chavakkad Police Station are similar.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant in both the crimes, are husband and wife and they are bent upon ensuring that petitioner is kept behind bars. The nature of allegations in the instant case also indicates that the vehicle allegedly stolen by the petitioner belongs to the friend of the defacto complainant. The said owner has no allegation of theft till date. In such circumstances, I am of the view that petitioner’s contention seems to be more probable at this juncture. Therefore, he is entitled to be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail.
7. InSushila 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 interrogation is required would not be sufÏcient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.
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 the petitioner is entitled to be protected by an on pre-arrest bail.
10. Accordingly, this bail application of is allowed on the following conditions.
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating OfÏcer on 25.07.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.
