The court ruled that while serious allegations exist, custodial interrogation is not necessary for the accused, allowing pre-arrest bail with conditions.

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.391 of 2025 of Kaipamangalam Police Station, Thrissur, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 333, 296(b), 351(2) and 3(5) of the of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to the prosecution, on 11.05.2025, while the defacto complainant and her daughter were in their house, the first accused trespassed armed with an iron pipe, with the intention to manhandle them on the ground of an enmity towards the defacto complainant, as she and her neighbor lodged a complaint against the accused, and uttered obscene words towards the defacto complainant, apart from brandishing the iron pipe and threatening to kill the defacto complainant and her husband, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard Sri. Shaju Purushothaman, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that petitioner is involved in five other crimes, including an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and hence anticipatory bail ought not to be granted.

6. The allegations in the FIR indicate that the accused had abused the defacto complainant and her daughter after trespassing into their house due to an enmity for filing a complaint against the petitioner and also threatened to kill them.

7. Though the allegations against the petitioner are serious and his criminal antecedents are not that honorable, still, considering the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is not necessary.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary. However, petitioner must subject himself to interrogation for the purpose of completion of investigation. 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.

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

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating OfÏcer on 11.07.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.

(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating OfÏcer 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 OfÏcer.

(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating OfÏcer as and when required an