In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court has set a new precedent regarding anticipatory bail, debunking the notion that the absence of a need for custodial interrogation alone is sufficient grounds for such bail. This significant decision came during the denial of pre-arrest bail to a teacher embroiled in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
Justice A Badharudeen, presiding over the case, emphasized that while custodial interrogation is a factor, it cannot overshadow other crucial considerations such as the existence of a prima facie case, the gravity of the offense, and potential penalties. The court underscored the misconception that anticipatory bail hinges solely on the absence of a requirement for custodial interrogation, highlighting it as merely one aspect among many.
The case in question involved a 65-year-old teacher accused of sexually harassing a 9th-grade student, facing charges under various legal provisions including the IPC, POCSO Act, and the Juvenile Justice Act. Despite claims of innocence by the accused and his long-standing tenure at a tuition center, the court deemed custodial interrogation vital for a thorough investigation and the establishment of charges.
Drawing upon the Supreme Court’s stance in similar cases, the Kerala High Court stressed the need for a comprehensive assessment of the allegations and the severity of the offense before considering anticipatory bail. Even in instances where custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary, it cannot serve as the sole basis for granting such bail, the court declared.
Furthermore, the court took into account the significant impact of the alleged crime on the victim’s well-being, noting severe trauma that had adversely affected her studies. Consequently, the court ruled against granting pre-arrest bail, citing sufficient reasons for denial.
The legal battle featured seasoned advocates representing both the accused and the victim, alongside diligent representation from the state’s Senior Public Prosecutor. This verdict, while setting a stringent standard for anticipatory bail, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice and protecting the rights of the vulnerable.
