The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted if the necessity for custodial interrogation is not adequately justified.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the 6^th accused in Crime No.552 of 2025 of Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03 (2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

3. According to the prosecution, between 02.05.2025 and

17.05.2025, accused 1 to 5, committed theft of two DRAM data units used for Vodafone Idea cable systems, valued at approximately Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that he has no involvement in the alleged crime.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that custodial interrogation is essential.

7. Petitioner, along with other accused are alleged to have committed theft of two data cables of Vodafone Idea cable systems. Accused 1 to 5 have already been arrested and the stolen articles have also been retrieved from the house of the petitioner.

8. Though the allegation of theft has been raised against all the accused, considering that the stolen articles have already been recovered and the remaining accused have already been arrested, I am of the view that petitioner can be granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions and his custodial interrogation is not necessary.

9. 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.

10. 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 interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary.

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

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on

07.08.2025 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) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the ba