The Court allows anticipatory bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation is unnecessary given the nature of allegations and that adequate conditions can be imposed to ensure cooperation with the investigation.

ORDER

This petition seeking anticipatory bail has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No.1639/2025 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station, registered, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 78 (1), 351(2), 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 06.12.2025 at 07.10 a.m., the accused followed the de facto complainant, aged 15 years, in a Thar Jeep and wrongfully restrained her in front of the St.Mary’s Nooranal Church at Sulthan Bathery and threatened her and compelled her to board the jeep while she was proceeding to the Minerva PSC centre. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the above-mentioned offence.

3. I heard Smt. Celine Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, and have perused the available records.

4. The allegation that the petitioner followed a minor girl aged 15 years in a jeep and attempted to lure her and threatened her to enter into the said jeep cannot be viewed lightly. The incident that led to the registration of this case occurred on 06.12.2025 at 07.10 a.m. From the available records, it is gatherable that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie well-founded. However, there is no specific allegation that the petitioner molested or physically assaulted the de facto complainant. Though the absence of such an allegation does not, by itself, dilute the gravity of the accusations, it is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while adjudicating a petition for anticipatory bail. Likewise, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner prima facie indicates that custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the effective progress of the investigation. Furthermore, the presence and cooperation of the petitioner during the course of the investigation can be adequately secured by imposing appropriate and stringent conditions. 5. Although the learned Senior Public Prosecutor has brought to my notice that three cases have previously been registered against the petitioner, two of them are minor offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the third is under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act, relating to the consumption of narcotic substances. This is the first occasion on which the petitioner has been implicated in a case of this nature. Moreover, the petitioner is only 26 years old.

Having regard to the nature of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, and considering the fact that custodial interrogation is not necessary for the effective progress of the investigation, I am inclined to allow this petition on the following conditions;

1. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. on 16.02.2026.

2. Upon surrender, if the Investigating Officer finds it necessary to record the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

3. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him or her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the investigating officer.

4. Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

5. The petitioner shall not contact the de facto complainant either directly or through any electronic medium.

6. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as lai