‘Some cops even aiding accused’: Kerala High Court fumes over lapses before arrests, orders compliance with rules

The court issued directions to criminal courts in the state to ensure strict compliance with mandatory pre-arrest procedures before ordering remand.

Justice A Badharudeen was hearing a criminal appeal filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act.

“It is perceivable that some Investigating Officers are failing to comply with the pre-arrest formalities for want of proper understanding of law and some among them are doing it intentionally to help the accused to get bail even in very serious cases with ulterior motives”. The court said on March 5.

Background

• The appeal arose from the order dated February 11, 2026, of the special court under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act.
• The prosecution alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 74 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 75(2)(sexual harassment) and 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of woman) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with relevant sections under the SC/ST Act.

Accused in custody since Feb 5

• Advocate Sadchith P Kurup, appearing for the appellant, contended that he was innocent and that the allegations were made with the intention of disarming him from performing his official duties.
• It was argued that the complainant made the allegations because she was reluctant to perform duties assigned by him in his capacity as superior officer.
• The defence highlighted that the accused had been in custody since February 5, 2026.
• It was submitted that the investigation had progressed and, therefore, continued detention was unnecessary.
• On these grounds, the appellant sought grant of regular bail.

Prosecution’s case

• The public prosecutor opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the allegations.
• It was argued that the investigation was still at a premature stage and releasing the accused could adversely affect the investigation.
• The prosecution highlighted that the accused held a higher official position in the same workplace where the victim was employed. Premature release could influence witnesses or create pressure on the victim.

Court’s observations

• All criminal courts in the state are to ensure that, before considering a remand application and ordering remand, compliance with the pre-arrest formalities must be followed as mandated in the decisions in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, and Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
• Before ordering remand, the magistrate or special judge shall get an endorsement in the proceedings sheet stating that the above pre-arrest formalities have been complied with and the accused has no objection in this regard.
• In the event of non-compliance, the magistrate/special judge must ensure compliance of formalities under the investigating officer and remand to be considered only after ensuring compliance.
• The court directed magistrates and special judges to verify whether the grounds of arrest have been communicated to the accused and their relatives in writing and to record such compliance in the remand order.

With inputs from Sumit Kumar Singh. Sumit is an intern with The Indian Express.