Custodial interrogation not needed can't be sole ground to grant anticipatory bail: SC

The Supreme Court has criticised the practice of High Courts to grant anticipatory bail to accused in criminal cases on the ground that no custodial interrogation is requiredA bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J B Pardiwala said there is a serious misconception that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bailIn 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 bailCustodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail the bench saidAlso Read Calling girl item is derogatory used to objectify her with sexual intent CourtThere may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail it saidThe top court said the first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accusedThereafter 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 saidThe Supreme Courts observations came while setting aside the anticipatory bail granted to a man accused under various sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 in the Wayanad district of KeralaThe apex court said the observations of the high court are totally unwarranted and had been made overlooking the specific allegations in the FIRIn 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 bench saidThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever