Custodial interrogation in anticipatory bail applications requires concrete justification beyond mere assertions by the State.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.700 of 2025 of Kunnathunad Police Station, Ernakulam, registered for the offences punishable under Section 31 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘the DV Act’).

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had on

02.06.2025, in violation of an order in C.M.P.No.24/2018 of the Grama Nyayalaya, Vadavucode, committed various acts and thereby violated the order of the court and committed the offence alleged.

4. Heard Sri. Paul K. Varghese, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Noushad K A, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that he has no involvement in the alleged crime and, therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

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

7. Petitioner’s wife had obtained a protection order under the DV Act from the Grama Nyayalaya, Vadavucode. The 2^nd and 3^rd accused are alleged to have done various acts in violation of the order and the petitioner is the person who is alleged to have instigated such acts to be carried on.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that this is the second occasion when the petitioner has violated an order of the court issued under the DV Act. However, a reading of the FIR indicates that the acts were done by accused 2 and 3, while the petitioner is alleged to have instigated the commission of such an act. Accused 2 and 3 have already been granted bail by the Sessions Court. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner can also be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail.

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. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to convince this Court of the necessity of custodial interrogation. 11. 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 ought to be released on pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) In the event of the petitioner being arrested in Crime No.700 of 2025 of Kunnathunad Police Station, Ernakulam, 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.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating OfÏcer for interrogation if he is so required in writing and shall co-

operate with the investigation.

(c) Petitioner shall not destroy or tamper with the evidence or intimidate or threaten or contact the defacto complainant. (d) Petitioner shall not commit any other 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