JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

'xxx xxx I was present at Bahadurgarh on dated 29.10.2024 than I received a telephonic call from Yogesh alias Sachin S/o Subhash of my village and he asked me to meet. I reached my house at about 9:30 PM then Yogesh alias Sachin asked me to meet him in the park of the village. When I reached near the park, where Yogesh alias Sachin was already standing there. I and Yogesh alias Sachin were talking, then from behind Dheeraj S/o Rajeram, Praveen S/o Azad resident of village Shahpur came there in Alto car. Then Yogesh alias Sachin, Dheeraj and Praveen all together started beating me with kicks and fist blows and they forcibly kidnapped me and put me in Alto car and they taken me and after some time they stopped the car in lonely place just ahead of SDM school in Deshalpur village. Then all accused persons threw me out of the car and started beating me by breaking sticks from trees. They again forcibly put me in the car and went towards the village Bupania. Parveen called Vicky S/o Ramniwas and Mohit of Bupania village on his mobile. Then Vicky and Mohit came there and after seeing my condition Vicky and Mohit Saved me from them. All three boys threatened me that this time you are saved but whenever we will get chance, we will kill you. After that they dropped me at my home at village Shahpur. Please strict action be taken against them. Upon this application FIR No. 214 dated 30.10.2024 Under Section 140(3), 115, 351(3), 3(5) BNS registered at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh Distt. Jhajjar."

4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.

5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

'4 That all accused persons concealed themselves and not appearing before the investigating officer. However, dandas and sticks which were used by the accused to beat the complainant Sonu are yet to be recovered from the accused persons. That mobile phones of the accused are yet to be recovered.

5 That the petitioner along with other co-accused kidnapped the complainant and beaten him mercilessly with sticks, kicks and fist blows and they also extended threats to kill him. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for proper and thorough investigation."

7. The complainant did not attribute any motive for the assault.

8. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pretrial incarceration.

9. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

10. The petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co-accused with a higher role.

11. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time i