SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
Bijoy and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor and ors. – Respondents
Bail Appl. No. 5814 of 2025
Decided On : 23-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Nireesh Mathew
For the Respondent: Sri.Noushad K.A., Pp

Anticipatory bail considerations include the nature of the offence and necessity for custodial interrogation, with the State required to provide substantial justification for such interrogation.

Headnote:

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 3(5) - Bail applications filed under Section 482 - Accused alleged to have assaulted complainant and others using weapons, causing serious injuries - Delay in FIR registration questioned as indicative of false allegations. (Paras 2, 3, 5)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Considerations for granting anticipatory bail include nature of offences, role of applicant, and necessity of custodial interrogation - Mere assertion by State insufficient to justify custodial interrogation. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners are accused in a case involving serious assault on the complainant and others, with allegations of using weapons during the incident. The incident occurred on 15.04.2025, but the FIR was registered on 17.04.2025, raising questions about the credibility of the allegations.

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the bail application for three accused, requiring them to surrender for custodial interrogation, while allowing bail for the third accused under specific conditions due to his military service.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the FIR registration timeline and the necessity of custodial interrogation for the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion, guided by the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity for custodial interrogation, which the State failed to adequately justify.

Result: B.A.No.5814/2025 is dismissed; B.A.No.5819/2025 is allowed with conditions.

ORDER :

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

These bail applications are filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioners in B.A.No.5814/2025 are accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 while petitioner in B.A.No.5819/2025 is the third accused in Crime No. 388/2025 of Kollengode Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that, accused had, on 15.04.2025, pursuant to a quarrel with the members of the temple committee assaulted the de facto complainant and others using an iron rod and other weapons and caused serious injuries, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was submitted that though the incident is alleged to have occurred on 15.04.2025, the crime is seen to have registered only on 17.04.2025, which itself indicates the falsity of the allegations. The learned counsel further submitted that the third accused, who is the petitioner in B.A.No.5819/2025, is a serving personnel of the Indian Army, and therefore, he may even lose his job, if he is arrested, which is the intention of the de facto complainant, and therefore, the said petitioner also ought to be granted anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to Annexure-2 and 3, which, according to him, indicate the injuries sustained by the first petitioner, and submitted that, petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed upon them.

6. The learned Public Prosecutors, on the other hand, submitted that, the allegations are serious, and the recovery of weapons used in the offence is essential. It was pointed out that the roles of each of the accused are specifically mentioned in the FIR, and their overt acts clearly indicate the requirement of custodial interrogation of each of the accused. It was further submitted that the third accused cannot be subjected to any differential treatment merely because he is serving in the Indian Army. Learned Public Prosecutor, also submitted that as far as the injuries mentioned in Annexures 2 and 3 are concerned, those documents are only casualty registration receipts and not wound certificates, and ought not be relied upon by this Court at this juncture.

7. On a consideration of the rival contentions and on a perusal of the FIR and other records produced, this Court is of the view that, custodial interrogation of the petitioners in B.A.No.5814/2025 is essential, especially since, the weapon of offence has to be recovered. Petitioners are alleged to have assaulted the de facto complainant and others using iron rods. Five persons had sustained injuries and therefore, custodial interrogation of the accused cannot be avoided.

8. In this context, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the third accused has to be considered. Since he is stated to be a serving personnel of the Indian Army, he may lose his job, if he is detained. Though the nature of overt act alleged against the third accused is serious, bearing in mind his nature of employment, I am of the view that, his custodial interrogation can be avoided, provided he surrenders before the Investigating Officer and subjects himself to interrogation on a date to be specified.

9. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2020) 5 SCC 1 , it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top