Anticipatory Bail An 'Extraordinary Privilege' To Be Granted Only In Exceptional Circumstance: Andhra Pradesh HC In Sexual Harassment Case

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of an accused in a sexual harassment case has observed that denying custodial interrogation can result in significant loopholes and gaps in the ongoing investigation that may adversely affect its integrity.

Single judge Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao also observed,

“The anticipatory bail, the extraordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie convinced that Petitioner is enroped in the crime and unlikely to misuse the liberty granted. The necessity for custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is paramount in this case to facilitate a thorough investigation into the accusations.”

The ruling came in a case where the Court was dealing with a criminal petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The petitioner was charged under Sections 62 read with 64(1), 74, 75(2), and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 7 read with 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The prosecution's case was that the accused forcibly entered the victim's house, beat her and attempted to commit rape. When she raised cries, he closed her mouth, beat her cheeks, and continued his attempt. On hearing her cries, the neighbours rushed in, and the accused escaped.

The Petitioner contended that he was being falsely implicated owing to serious disputes with the defacto complainant and that there was a three-day delay in reporting the alleged incident. Further, there was no material evidence of an attempt to commit rape, and the Petitioner was willing to furnish security and comply with conditions for bail.

The Court, while denying anticipatory bail to the petitioner, held that in deciding whether bail should be granted in a non-bailable offence, the nature and gravity of the offence must be considered. The Court reasoned that while “pre-trial imprisonment cannot be used as a substitute for punishment without the scrutiny of evidence by the Trial Court”, taking into consideration the facts of the present case, granting bail to the petitioner may have an adverse impact on society.

The Court further observed,

“In a case containing serious allegations, the Investigating Officer deserves a free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that the investigation officer who has been prevented from subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out prima facie substance in the allegations which are of extreme serious in nature. The possibility of the investigation getting effected, once the petitioner is released on bail is very much foreseen. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.”

With regards to the contention that there was delay in filing the report, the Court noted that the alleged incident occurred on 04.01.2025, but the report was lodged on 07.01.2025, as the Defacto Complainant was unavailable until 06.01.2025. He returned from Ahmedabad on 06.01.2025, and the report was subsequently lodged on 07.01.2025. Therefore, it could not be asserted that no explanation was provided for the delay. In the absence of cogent material, the Court refused to accept the Petitioner's contention that the delay resulted from deliberations and legal consultations.

Additionally, the Court noted that the Petitioner was previously involved in another case registered under Sections 376 r/w 511 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, and custodial interrogation was necessary for further investigation.

Accordingly, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and consequently dismissed his petition.

Case Details:

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1964/2025

Case Name: Karthikeyan @ P S Karthik v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Date: 04.03.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order