The court ruled that anticipatory bail is warranted due to insufficient evidence justifying custodial interrogation amidst serious allegations of sexual assault.

ORDER

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. 1154/2025 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam, registered alleging offences punishable under Section 7 , Section 8 , Section 9 (l) and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Amended), 2012, 2019, (for short, ‘POCSO Act’).

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, during the period from 2022 July till 2023 December, while serving as a doctor in an Ayurveda hospital, had sexually assaulted the defacto complainant by pressing on her breasts, thighs and her tummy and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard Sri. P.K. Ramkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Raji S., the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and Sri. Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Petitioner is alleged to have sexually assaulted the minor victim during the period from 2022 July till 2023 December. The accused contends that the allegations are totally false and is raised due to extraneous considerations and under the influence of the Chief Trustee of the hospital where petitioner is working. The complaint has been filed only on 13.06.2025. Though an explanation is given considering the nature of allegations, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary. In this context, the report of the Investigating Officer handed over across the Bar by the learned Public Prosecutor also indicates that investigation conducted so far has not been able to identify any material against the petitioner. However, since the investigation is still continuing, I am of the view that petitioner must subject himself to interrogation under a limited custody.

6. 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.

7. 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 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.

8. In the instant case, the prosecution 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 and hence petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.

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

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 28.07.2025, from 10.00 am to 03.00 pm, and shall subject himself to interrogation, which period shall be treated as limited custody for the purpose of completing the investigation.

(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 r