The Supreme Court in the case X vs Arun Kumar CK observed that an anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because custodial interrogation is not required.
The bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala observed that the first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case being put up against the accused.
In the present case, the court was considering an appeal filed by mother of a victim in a POCSO case against the Kerala High Court order of granted anticipatory bail to the accused.
It had been noted by the Court that in many anticipatory bail matters, one common argument is being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, moreover, anticipatory bail may be granted.
The bench stated that these allegations appear to be 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 for granting of an anticipatory bail. However, custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail and there may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but the same does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and anticipatory bail should be granted to him.
Further, it was explained by the court that the first and foremost thing is that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. The nature of the offence committed should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. One of the grounds can be the custodial interrogation to decline custodial interrogation. Thereafter, even if the custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.
