The court ruled that anticipatory bail should be granted when allegations are serious but do not warrant custodial interrogation due to lack of aggravated 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.664 of 2025 of Thenhipalam Police Station, Malappuram, registered for the offences punishable under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 7 r/w Section 8 and Section 11 (iv) r/w Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .

3. According to the prosecution, the accused, who is a trainer in weightlifting, had sent abusive messages to the victim onto her mobile phone and also on a day in November, 2025, caught hold of her hands with sexual intent and again in December, 2024, inserted his hand inside her dress and caressed her back and also collected money from her for travelling to Delhi 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 prosecution allegations are false and that petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as an accused and therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail. It was submitted that the allegations are on the basis of a misunderstanding and even if those allegations are assumed to be correct, still it does not reflect a sexual intent.

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

7. Petitioner is a trainer in weightlifting. Petitioner is alleged to have sexually harassed the victim, who is one of his trainees. The allegations are no doubt serious in nature. However, since the allegations do not indicate any aggravated sexual assault, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner 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 of 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. Having regard to 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, therefore, he can be released on pre-arrest bail on conditions of limited custody.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating OfÏcer on 08.09.2025 from 10.00 am to 03.00 pm and shall subject himself to interrogation. The said period shall be treated as limited custody for the purpose of investigation. (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 OfÏc