While directing all the criminal courts in the State to ensure compliance with the pre-arrest formalities before considering a remand application, the Kerala High Court has held that the Magistrate or the Special Judge must get endorsement of fulfilment of the pre-arrest formalities & no-objection from the accused before ordering remand.

The High Court was considering an appeal filed by the sole accused under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST (POA) Act).

The Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen ordered, “In view of the above, there shall be a specific direction to all criminal courts in the State to ensure that, before considering remand application and ordering remand, compliance with the pre-arrest formalities must be ensured…”

"It is specifically ordered that before ordering remand, the learned Magistrate or the learned 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, on personally satisfying compliance of the same and the same shall be recorded in the remand order. In the event of non-compliance, the Magistrate or the Special Judge, as the case may be, must ensure compliance of the formalities at the helm of the Investigating Officer and remand to be considered only after ensuring compliance of the formalities. Therefore, the Magistrate or the Special Judge, as the case may be, on noting deliberate intention on the part of the arresting/Investigating Officer in non-complying with the prearrest requirements, shall recommend disciplinary proceedings against the arresting/Investigating Officer, without fail”, it clarified.

Advocate Sadchith. P.Kurup represented the Petitioner while Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The prosecution alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(2) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act by the accused. The prosecution case was that the accused, who has been working as the Deputy Range Officer, Kochukoickal Forest Station, and who is not a member of either the scheduled caste or the scheduled tribe community, sexually assaulted the de facto complainant, a member of the scheduled caste community who has been working as a Beat Forest Officer at the office of the Deputy Range Officer, Kochukoickal, at the mess hall of the said office. The main allegation was that the accused caught hold of the de facto complainant and sexually abused her.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the FIR, the Bench noted that one woman officer invited the complainant to have lunch at the mess. While supplying curries, the accused allegedly approached her and caught hold of her, taking advantage of the non-availability of the electric supply. In the First Information Statement, it was further stated that a similar experience was faced by another Beat Forest Woman Officer, at the instance of the accused.

“On perusal of the First Information Statement, the allegations necessary to constitute the offences alleged are well made out, prima facie and the absolute innocence canvassed by the appellant's counsel is found to be unacceptable”, it stated.

It was noticed that even though the non-information of the grounds of arrest had been placed as a reason to grant bail, since the prosecution recorded justified compliance with the pre-arrest formalities, the appellant did not press for the challenge on this ground. However, the Bench noted that because of failure on the part of the Investigating Officers to intimate the grounds of arrest to the accused, or to the relatives, friends, or a nominee of the accused in writing and for other reasons in the matter of non-compliance of prearrest requirements, many accused have been released after arrest though they got involved in very serious crimes, finding their arrest as illegal.

“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”, it observed while also adding, “Therefore, the matter is to be seriously taken note of to address the issue with a view to safeguard the interest of the justice and to protect the rule of law.”

Referring to the judgments in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025) and Joginder Kumar v. State of UP & Ors. (1994), the Bench enumerated the pre-arrest formalities.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench allowed the criminal appeal and granted regular bail to the appellant after taking note of the progress of the investigation and the status of the accused as a first-time offender.

Cause Title: K. A. Ashokan v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation:2026:KER:19646)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Sadchith.P.Kurup, Siva Suresh, B.Sreedevi, Athira Vijayan, Vyshnav S. Nair, Akshara Ravi

Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice A Badharudeen

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.