Pre-Arrest Bail Under Section 31 DV Act Cannot Be Denied If Accused Had No Notice Of Protection Order: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 6, 2026, held that an accused cannot be held liable for the breach of a protection order under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), if the order was not served upon them at the time of the alleged incident. Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath observed that knowledge of the judicial mandate is a prerequisite for culpability under the statute.

The petitioner had moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 872/2026 of Anthikkad Police Station. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 31 of the DV Act, stemming from a domestic dispute where the petitioner allegedly caused head injuries to his wife.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the petitioner could be denied anticipatory bail on the basis of violating a protection order when there was no evidence that the said order had been communicated to him prior to the date of the occurrence. The court also examined whether custodial interrogation was essential given the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary status of the case.

Court Clarifies Requisites For Section 31 DV Act Offences

The Court meticulously examined the timeline regarding the issuance and service of the protection order. While the Magistrate had passed the order on August 14, 2026, the documentation presented clearly established that the petitioner only received notice on September 15, 2026. Since the alleged offence occurred on September 6, 2026, the Court reasoned that the petitioner could not have intentionally violated a mandate of which he had no legal notice.

"The applicant did not have the knowledge of the protection order when the alleged incident took place," the bench noted, effectively neutralizing the prosecution's reliance on the breach of the protection order as a ground for denying bail.

Lack Of Requirement For Custodial Interrogation

Upon reviewing the case diary and the circumstances of the incident, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a compelling necessity for the petitioner’s custodial interrogation. The bench determined that the investigation could proceed effectively without keeping the petitioner in custody, thereby satisfying the criteria for granting pre-arrest bail under the BNSS.

"Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary," the Court held.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the bail application, subject to strict conditions. The petitioner is required to execute a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties and must cooperate fully with the investigating officer. Furthermore, the Court prohibited the petitioner from contacting prosecution witnesses, tampering with evidence, or leaving the State of Kerala without prior judicial permission, ensuring that the integrity of the ongoing investigation remains protected while securing the liberty of the accused.

Date of Decision: 06 October 2026