The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’, for short), for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 398/2024 of the Anchalummoodu Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 452, 323, 324 and 307 read with Sec.34

of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 22.3.2024 at around 16.00 hours, the accused, in prosecution of their common intention, uttered abusive words at the de facto complainant and threatened to kill Bail Application No. 2749 of 2024 him. The first accused beat the de facto complainant with a stick on his head and he suffered a grievous injury. The accused 2 and 3 had also beaten the de facto complainant with a stick on different parts of his body. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard;Sri.K.Siju the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure-AI FIR would substantiate that the offence under Sec.307 may not be attracted. In any given case, 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’s custodial interrogation is necessary. There is a specific overt act alleged against the petitioner. It was the Bail Application No. 2749 of 2024 petitioner who inflicted a grievous injury on the head of the de facto complainant by hitting with a stick. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would sabotage the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7. In Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar [2024 KHC OnLine 6137], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to the earlier precedents on the point, has succinctly laid down the law in the following lines:

8. It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under S.438, CrPC is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. (See the decision of this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J.Mannan & Anr., 2010 (1) SCC 679).

24. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and Bail Application No. 2749 of 2024 judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and