ORDER

Dated this the 14th day of August, 2024 The application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatriya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.787/2024 of the Kattappana Police Station, Idukki, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections

294(b), 324, and 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on

07.05.2024, at around 21.30 hours, the accused ordered the defacto complainant’s husband (injured) to get out of his autorickshaw, which he ignored. Infuriated by the said act, the accused abused him in obscene language and beat him with his hands. Subsequently, he also beat him on his head with an iron rod and the injured suffered serious injuries.

Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.Tom E. Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the very fact of the incident occurred on 07.05.2024 and Annexure I First Information Report was registered only 02.06.2024, that too by only incorporating Section 324 of the IPC, proves the falsity of the crime. There is no material to substantiate that the injured had suffered any grievous injuries so as to attract the offence under Section 308 of the IPC. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated the said Section to see that the petitioner is arrested. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the bail application may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner had beat the injured with an iron rod and he suffered head injuries. The injured was initially treated at the Government Hospital, Kattappana and subsequently, was taken to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, where he was treated from 13.05.2024 till 25.05.2024. The treatment records clearly reveal that the injured had suffered serious head injuries. It is only because the treatment records were given after the discharge of the injured. Section 308 of the IPC was subsequently incorporated. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected for the full and proper investigation of the crime. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre- arrest bail, it would hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7. The prosecution allegation is that, on

07.05.2024, the petitioner brutally assaulted the injured with an iron rod and he suffered serious injuries. The said accusation prima facie stands corroborated by the treatment records of the injured that have been handed over to this Court. Whether the accusations are true or not is a matter to be ultimately decided at the time of the trial. However, prima facie the allegation seems to be justifiable. The petitioner had moved a similar application before the Court of Session, Thodupuzha, which was dismissed by Annexure III order on 03.07.2024.

8. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another [(2012) 4 SCC 379], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, an order of pre-arrest bail being an extra ordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Courts has to be properly exercised, after proper application of mind, to decide whether it is a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. The court has to be prima facie satisfied that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime and his liberty is being misused.

9. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, and on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, the prima facie materials that substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime, th