The Court's discretion for anticipatory bail hinges on the nature of offenses and necessity for custodial interrogation, requiring substantial justification from the State.

O R D E R

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.858/2025 of Nedumkandam Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296 (b), 126(2), 115(2), 74, 76, 351(2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, on

05.08.2025, assaulted the defacto complainant and others after blocking the autorickshaw in which the defacto complainant was travelling 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. The petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant and abused her. However, there is a history to the said crime as Crime No.738/2025 of Santhanpara Police Station, registered against the employer of the defacto complainant, who is one of the injured in the present crime.

8. 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.

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 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 State has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary.

10. Since the genuineness of the prosecution case is prima facie interconnected with Crime No.738/2025 of Santhanpara Police Station, I am of the view that 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.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 06.01.2025 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 or contact the victim or her family members;

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

(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are requ