Anticipatory Bail is an Extraordinary Power, Not the Rule: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court in Vishnu K V v. State of Kerala (Bail Appl. No. 5685 of 2024) dismissed a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Vishnu, who was accused of stealing a mobile phone and ATM card. The Court held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted only in exceptional cases, and that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was necessary for the investigation.

Vishnu, a 25-year-old from Thrissur, was implicated in a robbery that occurred on September 26, 2023, when he allegedly stole a mobile phone and ATM card from a shed where workers, including the de-facto complainant, were employed. An FIR was lodged against him under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Vishnu sought pre-arrest bail, claiming that the charges were fabricated due to a wage dispute between the complainant and the workers. He further argued that there was no material evidence linking him to the crime.

The primary issue was whether Vishnu had made a sufficient case for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). His counsel argued that the delay in registering the FIR cast doubt on the allegations and that Vishnu had no prior criminal record.

The prosecution, however, contended that Vishnu’s custodial interrogation was crucial for recovering the stolen items and gathering further evidence. The delay in filing the FIR, it argued, was due to the petitioner’s mother’s assurance to return the stolen items, and the delay had been satisfactorily explained.

Justice C.S. Dias rejected the bail application, citing the gravity of the charges and the need for custodial interrogation. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024), which emphasized that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The Court reiterated:

"The grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant."

The Court noted that the petitioner’s involvement in the crime had been prima facie established, and custodial interrogation was necessary for the investigation. The prior dismissal of his bail application by the Sessions Court also weighed against his plea.

The Kerala High Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application, ruling that Vishnu’s custodial interrogation was necessary to complete the investigation. The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted routinely.

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024

Vishnu K V v. State of Kerala