Pre-arrest bail granted due to amicable settlement between parties, with no necessity for custodial interrogation.

COMMON ORDER

The above applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita , for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 to 4 in Crime No.1022 of 2024 of the North Police Station, Alappuzha, which is registered against four accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 110 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. BA No.8090 of 2024 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3, while BA No. 6815 of 2024 is filed by the fourth accused. As these applications arise from the same crime, they are consolidated, jointly heard and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The prosecution, in brief, is that: on 21.07.2024 at around 4.00 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and his friend named Shaji (injured), and the first accused hit the defacto complainant on his hands and legs with an iron pipe, the second accused hit him on his head with another iron pipe and accused Nos. 3 and 4 repeatedly hit the injured with their hands. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.Gijeesh Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri.Suresh Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/intervenor.

5. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the intervenor submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been amicably settled out of court with the intervention of mediators and friends. Tthe intervenor has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. He has no objection in the petitioners being granted an order of pre- arrest bail. The intervenor has filed Annexure R3A affidavit to the above effect.

6. When the matter came up for consideration on 18.10.2024, this Court had directed the learned Public Prosecutor to ascertain from the Investigating Officer as regards the genuineness of settlement arrived at between the parties.

7. Today when the bail applications were taken up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the intervenor has voluntarily executed Annexure R3 A affidavit and the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the injured has been amicably settled.

8. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the injured has been amicably settled, and the intervenor has filed Annexure R3A affidavit to the above effect, and further that defacto complainant and the injured have not suffered any grievous injury, I am of the firm view that the petitioners custodial interrogation is not necessary. Hence, I am convinced that the petitioners have made out valid grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the BNSS. I am satisfied and convinced that the petitioners are entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. Hence, I am inclined to allow these applications.

In the result, the applications are allowed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today.

(ii) In the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioners on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each; (iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

(iv) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,