The Supreme Court has criticised the observation of High Courts to grant antecedent bail to the suspect in criminal cases on the basis that no tutelary interrogation is needed.
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J. B. Pardiwala aforementioned there's a significant thought that if no case for tutelary interrogation is formed out by the prosecution then that alone would be a decent ground to grant antecedent bail.
"In several antecedent bail matters, we've noticed one common argument being canvassed that no tutelary interrogation is needed and, therefore, antecedent bail is also granted. There seems to be a significant thought of law that if no case for tutelary interrogation is formed out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a decent ground to grant antecedent bail.
"Custodial interrogation may be one among the relevant aspects to be thought of beside alternative grounds whereas deciding associate degree application seeking antecedent bail," the Bench aforementioned.
There is also several cases during which the tutelary interrogation of the suspect might not be needed however that doesn't mean that the clear case against the suspect ought to be unheeded or unnoted and he ought to be granted antecedent bail, it said.
The Supreme Court aforementioned the primary associate degreed foremost factor that the court hearing an antecedent bail application ought to contemplate is that the clear case place up against the suspect.
"Thereafter, the character of the offence ought to be looked into beside the severity of the penalty. tutelary interrogation may be one among the grounds to say no antecedent bail. However, notwithstanding tutelary interrogation isn't needed or necessitated, by itself, can't be a ground to grant antecedent bail," the Bench aforementioned.
The Supreme Court's observations came whereas setting aside the antecedent bail granted to a person suspect underneath numerous sections of the Protection of kids from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 within the Wayanad district of Kerala.
The Supreme Court aforementioned the observations of the supreme court area unit wholly unwarranted and had been created high the particular allegations within the FIR.
"In a case containing such serious allegations, the supreme court ought to not have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest because the work Officer deserves a blank check to require the probe to its logical conclusion," the apex court Bench aforementioned.