State's Mere Assertion For Custodial Interrogation Insufficient To Deny Anticipatory Bail In POCSO Case: Kerala High Court - 2025-07-12

State's Mere Assertion For Custodial Interrogation Insufficient To Deny Anticipatory Bail In POCSO Case: Kerala HC

KOCHI: In a significant ruling on the requisites for denying pre-arrest bail, the Kerala High Court has held that the State cannot oppose an anticipatory bail plea by merely asserting the need for custodial interrogation. The prosecution must substantively demonstrate why such detention is necessary for the investigation.

The order was passed by Justice Bechu KurianThomas while granting anticipatory bail to a 19-year-old accused of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Case Background

The petitioner, Shuhaib, a 19-year-old, sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered at Mannarkkad Police Station (Crime No. 512/2025). He was accused of offences under Section 332(C) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 7, 8, and 9(1) of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that on March 11 and 12, 2025, the accused went to the residence of the 16-year-old victim, where he hugged and kissed her. The incidents were reportedly discovered by the victim's father after reviewing CCTV footage, leading to a police complaint.

Arguments in Court

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations were false and that their client should be protected from arrest.

Conversely, the learned Public Prosecutor, Smt. Sreeja V., vehemently opposed the bail application, submitting that the custodial interrogation of the accused was essential for a thorough investigation into the matter.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Precedents

Justice Thomas , in his analysis, emphasized that the grant of anticipatory bail is a discretionary power guided by the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

The Court drew heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (2024) , which established a crucial principle:

"...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."

Applying this precedent, the High Court observed that the State had failed to provide a convincing justification for the necessity of custodial interrogation in this particular instance.

The Court also considered the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) , noting that factors like the nature of the allegations, the severity of the potential punishment, and the young age of both the petitioner and the victim were vital considerations.

In a key excerpt from the judgment, Justice Thomas stated:

"Considering the young age of the petitioner as well as the nature of allegations as revealed from the victim’s statement, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary... In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary."

Final Decision and Bail Conditions

Based on these considerations, the High Court allowed the bail application, concluding that the petitioner ought to be released on pre-arrest bail. The Court imposed strict conditions to ensure his cooperation with the investigation and to protect the victim.

The petitioner was directed to: 1. Appear before the Investigating Officer on June 25, 2025, for interrogation. 2. If arrested, be released on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties. 3. Cooperate fully with the investigation and appear as required. 4. Refrain from intimidating witnesses, tampering with evidence, or contacting the victim. 5. Not commit any similar offences while on bail.

The Court further clarified that the jurisdictional court is empowered to modify or cancel the bail if any of these conditions are violated.