JOIN USGranting advance bail where ‘no custodial interrogation’ needed ‘serious misconception of law’: SC
The Supreme Court on Thursday said it was a “serious misconception” to allow anticipatory bail in criminal cases only on the grounds that no custodial interrogation of the accused was required.
“In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail,” a bench of justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala said.
While criticising the high courts’ practice to grant anticipatory bail, the top court explained that custodial interrogation could be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding a bail application.
The apex court, however, cautioned that while there could be cases where the questioning of an accused after being detained might not be required, it did not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked, and be granted anticipatory bail.
The first and foremost thing, said the Supreme Court, was that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider must be the prima facie case put up against the accused.
“Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into, along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail,” the bench said.
Acting on a plea by the mother of a 12-year-old victim, the court set aside the anticipatory bail granted to a man accused under various sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Kerala’s Wayanad district.
The court said the high court’s observations made in its July 25, 2022, order were “totally unwarranted”, and were made overlooking the specific allegations in the FIR lodged against the maternal uncle of the girl child.
The bench said the high court committed a serious error in exercising its jurisdiction.
“In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest as the Investigating Officer deserves a free hand to take the probe to its logical conclusion,” the top court said.