Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. The High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 1 herein (original accused), observed in para 9 of the impugned order something which has really disturbed us. Para 9 reads thus:- “9. With the above principle in mind, when the facts of the case are noticed, it is revealed that the petitioner is the maternal uncle of the victim to whose house the victim went in December, 2021. On 14.12.2021, the victim is alleged to have been asked to sit on the lap of the petitioner, who thereafter is alleged to have hugged and kissed the victim on her cheeks. Though on the one side, there is a possibility of such hugs and kisses being manifestations of affection by an uncle, one cannot ignore the possibility of such show of ‘affections’ being coloured by sexual overtones. However, those are all matters for investigation.”
11. In our considered opinion, the observations made in Para 9 of the impugned order are totally unwarranted and have been made overlooking the specific allegations contained in the FIR, duly supported with the Statement of the victim – girl child under Section 164 of the Code.
12. 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 free-hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which are of extreme serious in nature.
13. The fact that the victim – girl is traumatized to such a high degree that her academic pursuits have been adversely impacted alone, coupled with the legislative intent especially reflected through Section 29 of the POCSO Act, are sufficient to dissuade a Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in granting pre-arrest bail.
14. It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. SUMITHA PRADEEP v. ARUN KUMAR C.K & ANR.
15. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
16. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. 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. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There 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. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is 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.
17. Before we close this matter one more clarification is necessary. We have referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court rendered in the case of Joy (supra). The case of Joy (supra) deals with Section 29 of the POCSO Act. When the learned Judge decided the anticipatory bail application, the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Joy (supra) was binding to him. He could not have ignored a binding decision. It is a different thing to say that if he may disagree with the view taken and accordingly refer it to a larger Bench. However, without looking into the dictum as laid in Joy (supra), the observations made by the High Court in para 9 of its impugned order referred to above could be said to be absolutely unwarranted and not one befitting a High Court.
18. We are not going into the issue of Section 29 of the POCSO Act in the present case. Even without the aid of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, we are convinced that the High Court committed a serious error in exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent No. 1 herein (original accused) while granting anticipatory bail.
19. For the reasons afore-stated, and without expressing any views on merits of the case, we allow this appeal; set aside the impugned Judgment and Order dated 25-7-2022 passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No.1.
20. Investigating Officer is granted liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.
21. Suffice to say that law will take its own course. Devika Gujral Appeal allowed. SUMITHA PRADEEP v. ARUN KUMAR C.K & ANR.