The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary privilege that should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The court denied the anticipatory bail plea of an accused in a sexual harassment case, highlighting the importance of custodial interrogation to ensure a comprehensive investigation.
Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, while delivering the judgment, stated:
"Anticipatory bail, an extraordinary privilege, should be granted only when the court is prima facie convinced that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and is unlikely to misuse the liberty granted. The necessity for custodial interrogation in this case is paramount for a thorough investigation."
The judgment was passed in response to a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The petitioner was accused under Sections 62 read with 64(1), 74, 75(2), and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Section 7 read with 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
Case Background
The prosecution alleged that on January 4, 2025, the accused forcibly entered the victim’s house, assaulted her, and attempted to commit rape. When the victim resisted and raised an alarm, the accused reportedly shut her mouth and continued his attempt. The intervention of neighbors forced the accused to flee the scene.
Read Also:- Bombay HC Grants Bail in POCSO Case Citing Minor’s “Sufficient Awareness” of Consensual Relationship
The accused, however, argued that he was falsely implicated due to existing disputes with the complainant. He also pointed to a three-day delay in reporting the incident, arguing that it raised doubts about the authenticity of the complaint. The petitioner further contended that there was no material evidence supporting the charge of attempted rape and expressed his willingness to comply with any conditions set for bail.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The court, while considering the anticipatory bail plea, underscored the serious nature of the allegations. It observed:
"In cases involving grave allegations, the investigating officer must be given a free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. If custodial interrogation is denied, it may leave significant loopholes, weakening the integrity of the investigation."
Addressing the delay in reporting the incident, the court noted that the complainant was unavailable until January 6, 2025, as he was out of town. The complaint was subsequently lodged on January 7, 2025. The court ruled that this explanation was reasonable and dismissed the petitioner’s argument that the delay was due to deliberations and legal consultations.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Clarifies: Higher Punishment Applies When Conviction is Under Both POCSO Act and IPC
Additionally, the court took into account the fact that the petitioner had a prior criminal record. He was previously involved in a case registered under Sections 376 read with 511 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Given this background, the court found custodial interrogation necessary to uncover further details.
After considering all aspects, the High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1964/2025
Case Name: Karthikeyan @ P S Karthik v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
