Courts can grant anticipatory bail conditions depending on the nature of allegations and necessity for investigation, acknowledging victim's statements under specific legal principles.

ORDER

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1657 of 2025 of Kollam East Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 87, 64, 75(2) and 75(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) .

3. According to the prosecution, the accused, with intention to satisfy his sexual desire, on 29.05.2025, forcefully took the defacto complainant to his residence on a scooter at around 08.00 pm, and thereafter, petitioner compelled her to perform oral sex and also assaulted her, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard Sri. Biju C. Abhraham, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Prosecution alleges that on 29.05.2025, the defacto complainant, who is a 37 year old lady, went along with the petitioner, who is 63 years old, on his scooter to a house at around 08.00 pm., and while inside the said house, petitioner compelled her to perform oral sex and also sexually assaulted her, and thereafter, the victim pushed him down and escaped from the place.

6. Petitioner has a contention that the defacto complainant had issued a signed blank cheque for Rs.9,00,000/- dated 15.07.2025, and as the date came close for presentation of the cheque, she lodged this false complaint.

7. During the course of the hearing, the statements of the victim given to the police as well as to the doctor were perused. There are apparent inconsistencies in those statements. In the light of the contention raised by the petitioner, coupled with the inconsistencies as noted from the statements mentioned above, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, especially since the allegation of the defacto complainant does not inspire confidence in this Court. Since it is only at the stage of investigation, it is not proper for this court to consider those inconsistencies in this order, as it may have repercussions for either of the parties, and therefore, I desist from discussing those inconsistencies.

8. Notwithstanding the above, since the allegations relate to a sexual assault on the defacto complainant and bearing in mind the legal principle that the prosecutrix’s statement is admissible in evidence without any further corroboration, I am of the view that petitioner must undergo interrogation but under a limited custody.

9. In the decision 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. It has also been observed in the said decision that in appropriate cases limited custody can be granted for the purpose of completing the investigation and also for effecting recovery.

10. Keeping in mind the above principles, I am of the view that the circumstances of the instant case warrant only a limited custody of the petitioner for completing the investigation.

11. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating OfÏcer on 21.07.2025 from 10.00 am to 05.00 pm, and if required, again on 22.07.2025 from 10.00 am to 05.00 pm and shall subject himself to interrogation, which period shall be treated as limited custody.

(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating OfÏcer proposes to arrest the petiti