The main legal point established is that custodial interrogation and recovery may not be necessary for granting pre-arrest bail, especially when there are contradictory statements made by the investigating officer.

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2024 The applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for orders of pre- arrest bail. As these bail applications arise out of the same crime, they were consolidated and jointly heard and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. B.A No.1432/2024 is filed by the accused 4,3,5 and 6 and B.A. No.1485/2024 is filed by the 7th accused in Crime No.18/2024 of the Panamaram Police Station, Wayanad, registered against the accused (eight in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326, 427, 294(b) r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 08.01.2024 at around 21.30 hours, the accused in furtherance of their common intention and out of their previous animosity with the de facto complainant had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and pulled him out of his vehicle, and one among them had voluntarily caused grievous hurt on the de facto complainant by hitting him with a stone and he sustained a fracture. The first accused had hit the de facto complainant on his head and face with a helmet. One among the accused had also kicked the de facto complainant on his abdomen and abused him in filthy language. The accused also caused damage to the vehicle of the de facto complainant and caused a loss of Rs.5,000/-. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.Krishna Prasad S, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Seetha S. and Smt. Neema T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutors.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no overt act alleged against the petitioners. By order dated 21.2.2024 in B.A. No.878/2024, this Court had dismissed the application filed by the first accused under Section 438 of the Code, on the specific finding that it was the first accused who inflicted injuries on the de facto complainant and he suffered a nasal bone fracture.

Therefore, custodial interrogation of the said accused was necessary and recovery was to be effected. In view of the said finding, it is evident that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for an order of pre-arrest bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutors opposed the applications. They submitted that at the time of considering B.A.No.878/2024, this Court found that it was the first accused who caused the nasal bone fracture to the de facto complainant. As the investigation has progressed, it is now revealed that it was the 3rd accused who inflicted the injury. Therefore, the petitioners’ custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected. Hence, the applications may be dismissed. 7. B.A No.878/2024 was filed by a person named Unaif, who was ranked as the first accused in the above crime. At that point of time, the learned Public Prosecutor categorically submitted that the CCTV footage secured by the Investigating Officer revealed that it was the first accused who hit the de facto complainant with a stone and he suffered a nasal bone fracture. Now, the Investigating officer says that it is not the first accused, but it is the 3rd accused who committed the offence. I am unable to accept the contradictory statements being made before this Court. If that was the case, it is for the Investigating Officer to have filed a statement before this Court and stated who had committed the offence. It is on the basis of the earlier submission made by the Investigating Officer, this Court dismissed the bail application filed by the first accused, on the finding that the