No need for custodial interrogation can not be the only ground for granting anticipant bail Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has blamed the practice of High Courts for granting anticipant bail to the indicted in felonious cases on the ground that custodial interrogation isn’t needed.
A bench of judges Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala said there’s a severe misconception that if no case for custodial interrogation by the execution is made out, that would be a good ground for granting anticipant bail.“In numerous anticipant bail cases, we’ve seen that a general argument is being propagated that custodial interrogation isn’t needed, and hence, anticipant bail can be granted. There seems to be a severe misconception of law that if a case for custodial interrogation by the execution isn’t made out, that would be a good ground for granting anticipant bail.

“The custodial interrogation along with other grounds may be one of the applicable aspects while deciding the operation for anticipant bail,” the bench said.

It said that there might be numerous cases in which the custodial interrogation of the indicted may not be needed, but this doesn’t mean that the prima facie case against the indicted should be ignored or ignored, and he should be granted anticipant bail.

The top court said that the first and foremost thing that the court hearing the anticipant bail operation should do is to put a prima facie case against the indicted.

“After that, along with the inflexibility of the discipline, the nature of the offence should also be considered. Custodial interrogation can be a ground for denial of anticipant bail. Still, if custodial interrogation isn’t needed or needed, it can not be a ground to grant anticipant bail,” the bench said.

The Supreme Court made this observation while setting aside anticipant bail granted to an indicted under colourful sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012, in Kerala’s Wayanad quarter.

The apex court said that the compliances of the High Court were wholly unwarranted and made by ignoring the specific allegations in the FIR.

The apex court bench said,” In a case involving similar serious allegations, the High Court shouldn’t exercise its governance in granting protection against arrest as the probing officer is free to take the discourse to its logical conclusion.”

Related Posts

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button