The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the absence of an accused person’s name in the initial FIR, particularly when the complainant and accused belong to the same marginalized community, renders custodial interrogation unnecessary. This order reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail must be granted where there is no credible basis to suspect involvement beyond speculative inclusion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sonam Bai Kinner Guru Sapna Kinner, a member of the transgender community, seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 945/2023 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore. The case involves allegations under Sections 323, 294, 506, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, relating to assault, obscene acts, criminal intimidation, and attempt to murder.
Key Facts
- The FIR was lodged on 25.09.2023 against five co-accused persons: Bala @ Hemant Raikwar, Palak @ Alok Sharma, Kalpana, Shilpa, and Komal.
- The applicant’s name was not mentioned in the FIR or in any initial statements recorded by the police.
- The applicant’s name first appeared in the statement of the injured, Khushbu, dated 04.01.2025 - over 15 months after the FIR was filed.
- Both the applicant and the complainant belong to the transgender community and are known to each other personally.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record except for three minor cases under Section 323 IPC, which are non-serious and unrelated to the present allegations.
- No material evidence, witness statement, or forensic link connects the applicant to the alleged offences.
Procedural History
- 25.09.2023: FIR No. 945/2023 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore, naming five co-accused; applicant not named.
- 04.01.2025: Injured complainant Khushbu names the applicant for the first time in her statement.
- 15.03.2026: Applicant files anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC and Section 482 BNS 2023.
- 06.05.2026: Hearing before the High Court at Indore.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel argued that:
- The delayed inclusion of the applicant’s name, after 15 months, raises serious doubts about its credibility.
- The complainant had ample opportunity to name the applicant at the time of filing the FIR but did not, suggesting the inclusion was motivated or retaliatory.
- The applicant and complainant are part of the same vulnerable community, and personal disputes within such communities should not lead to custodial detention without strong evidence.
- No independent evidence links the applicant to the alleged offences.
- The applicant has no history of flight risk or tampering with evidence.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed the application on the grounds that:
- The applicant has three prior cases under Section 323 IPC, indicating a pattern of involvement in altercations.
- The inclusion of the applicant’s name in the complainant’s statement, however delayed, is sufficient to warrant investigation.
- The gravity of the offences under Sections 307 and 506 IPC justifies custodial interrogation.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, requesting protection from arrest and custodial interrogation, subject to reasonable conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the mere inclusion of an accused’s name in a statement filed 15 months after the FIR, without any corroborative evidence or initial mention, justifies denial of anticipatory bail and necessitates custodial interrogation.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest is not automatic and must be justified by necessity. She emphasized that the absence of her name in the FIR, coupled with the long delay in inclusion, undermines the credibility of the allegation. She cited Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India to assert that anticipatory bail must be granted where the allegations are vague, delayed, or lack prima facie support. The applicant further contended that the three prior Section 323 cases were minor, non-violent, and unrelated, and could not justify detention in a serious case without concrete evidence.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the inclusion of the applicant’s name in the complainant’s statement, even if delayed, constitutes sufficient grounds for investigation. It relied on State of U.P. v. Prakash to assert that the court should not interfere with police investigation at the pre-arrest stage. The State also contended that the seriousness of the offences under Section 307 IPC warranted custodial interrogation to prevent collusion or destruction of evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the timing and circumstances of the applicant’s inclusion in the case. It noted that the FIR was filed on 25.09.2023 and named five individuals, none of whom was the applicant. The applicant’s name appeared only on 04.01.2025, in the statement of the complainant, after a gap of over 15 months. The Court observed:
"The applicant’s name was not mentioned in the FIR or in any initial statements. The delay in naming her, coupled with the fact that both parties belong to the same community and are known to each other, raises legitimate doubts about the spontaneity and credibility of the allegation."
The Court further held that the three prior cases under Section 323 IPC were of a minor nature and did not indicate a propensity for violent or serious offences. It emphasized that anticipatory bail is a preventive remedy designed to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest, particularly where the allegations lack immediacy or corroboration. The Court distinguished State of U.P. v. Prakash by noting that in that case, the accused was named in the FIR and there was direct eyewitness testimony - conditions absent here.
The Court also considered the principle from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar that arrest must be a last resort and that custodial interrogation is not mandatory merely because a serious offence is alleged. The Court concluded that the applicant’s presence could be secured through non-custodial means, and there was no risk of evidence tampering or flight.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail, directing that in the event of arrest, she shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and furnishing one solvent surety of the same amount. She shall make herself available for police interrogation as required and abide by all conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC. The Court further directed that any violation of these conditions may be brought before the trial court for cancellation of bail, which shall decide the matter in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delayed Inclusion in FIR Undermines Credibility
- Practitioners must challenge arrests where an accused is named in a statement months after the FIR, especially if no corroborative evidence exists.
- Courts are likely to view such delays as indicative of malice, retaliation, or fabrication, particularly in cases involving marginalized communities.
Custodial Interrogation Not Automatic in Serious Cases
- The gravity of the offence alone cannot override the requirement for reasonable grounds to justify arrest.
- Prior minor offences under Section 323 IPC do not justify denial of anticipatory bail in unrelated serious cases without direct evidence.
Transgender Individuals Entitled to Equal Protection
-
Courts must be vigilant against discriminatory targeting of transgender persons under the guise of criminal investigation.
-
The fact that complainant and accused belong to the same community must be weighed in assessing motive and credibility.
-
Always request production of the complete case diary and initial statements to verify timing of inclusion.
-
File anticipatory bail applications immediately upon learning of delayed naming in statements.
-
Cite Arnesh Kumar and Sushil Kumar Sharma to argue against automatic arrest in absence of FIR inclusion.
