Court must evaluate the need for custodial interrogation against the nature of allegations when considering bail applications.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1121/2025 of Chalakudy Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section s 189 (2), 191(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(2) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

3. The prosecution case is that on 06.09.2025, at about

7:00 p.m., the accused formed an unlawful assembly near Apsara Bar, Chalakkudy, with the common object of taking vengeance against one Mr.Tenson, who is the cousin of the de facto complainant and who had withdrawn from the marriage alliance with the 4^th accused in the above crime. It is alleged that the accused thereafter wrongfully restrained and attacked Mr.Tenson with weapons. During the same transaction, accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted the de facto complainant and inflicted injuries on his face and lips. Hence, the accused persons are alleged to have committed the offences as stated above.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 has no involvement in the alleged crime.

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

7. Petitioners are the relatives of the 4^th accused, who was a bride. She backed out of the marriage fixed with the relative of the de facto complainant. After she backed out of the marriage, disputes arose and the accused are alleged to have brutally assaulted the de facto complainant and other persons. The 1^st accused is alleged to have used a stone block to assault the de facto complainant, resulting in a lacerated wound.

8. Having regard to the nature of allegations, and I also bearing in mind that the dispute arose out of withdrawal from marriage, I am of the view that custodial interrogation can be avoided.

9. 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.

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

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 petitioners are entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 06.01.2026 and shall subject himself to interrogation.

(b) If after int