There is a mistaken notion that if no custodial interrogation is required, the court may grant anticipatory bail, says the Supreme court in Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar C.K.
Even if custodial interrogation is not required by the prosecution, then that would not be a sound reason to grant anticipatory bail. The need for custodial interrogation is a relevant aspect to be considered in anticipatory bail petitions. But that is not the only ground that the courts need to consider while deciding any application for anticipatory bail. In many cases, custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required at all. But that does not mean that the accused might be granted anticipatory bail.
The first and foremost thing that the court should consider, while hearing an anticipatory bail application, is whether there is a prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence and the severity of the punishment should be looked into while considering the bail application.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required it cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.
The SC added that in the above case containing serious allegations, the High Court should not have exercise its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest as the Investigating Officer deserves a free hand to take the probe to its logical conclusion.
Reference
