O R D E R

Dated this the 04^th day of October, 2024 The application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘the BNSS’ for short), for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.571/2024 of the Valapattanam Police Station, Kannur, which is registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 121(1) r/w 3(5) of the BNS.

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

25.07.2024, at around 4.20 hours, while the de facto complainant and his party, on receiving a secret information about the illegal sand mining near Mangadav, went for patrolling duty on a scooter. On seeing the police party, the 1^st accused, who was at the site in a car, instructed the driver of a tipper lorry to hit the de facto complainant and party with the lorry.

As per the said instructions, the driver hit the lorry against the scooter of the de facto complainant, who fell down and suffered grievous injury. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.Samsudin Panolan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s culpability in the case. The Investigating Officers have deliberately implicated the petitioner as an accused in the case. Actually, the petitioner was not even at the scene of incident. It is quite impossible for the tipper lorry to over take a scooter through the narrow way leading to the river. The entire case is fabricated to see that the petitioner is arrested and incarcerated. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner had instructed the tipper lorry driver to hit the de facto complainant and his party with the lorry. The de facto complainant fell on the ground and suffered injuries. The learned Public Prosecutor handed over the Accident Register Cum Wound Certificate of the de facto complainant dated 25.07.2024, issued by the District Hospital, Kannur to substantiate that he has suffered injuries. He also submitted that the petitioner is an inveterate offender, since he is involved in six other crimes of the Valapattanam and the Kannapuram Police Stations for committing serious offences under the Indian Penal Code. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it will certainly affect the smooth investigation of the crime. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected for the proper investigation in the crime.

Therefore, the application may be dismissed.

7. The prosecution allegation is that, on instructions of the petitioner, the driver of the tipper lorry hit against the scooter of the de facto complainant, who fell down on the ground and suffered injuries. On a prima facie evaluation of the Wound Certificate, it is apparent that the de facto complainant has suffered injuries on 25.07.2024 and was treated at the District Hospital, Kannur. It is an un-disputed fact that the petitioner is also involved in six other crimes of Valapattanam as well as Kannapuram Police Stations for committing offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019.

8. In Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar [2024 KHC OnLine 6137] the Honourable Supreme Court, after referring to all the earlier decisions on the point, has observed in the following lines:

“8. It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should