Bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception; arrest must be justified based on necessity for investigation or prevention of further offences.

ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ).

2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.200/2025 of Varkala Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 74, 351(3), 115(2), 118(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 30.01.2025 at 08:00pm., the defacto complainant along with her family while travelling in a car, driven by her cousin brother, the accused Nos.1 to 4 approached them at Nadayara Junction, Varkala village. It is alleged that, because the car did not provide side for their vehicles, the 1^st accused forcefully dragged out the cousin brother of the defacto complainant and assualted. It is also alleged that the 2^nd accused caught hold of her sister's hand. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the only non-bailable offences alleged are under Section 74 and 118(1) of BNS. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants them bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, he conceded that, as per the report received by him from the Investigating OfÏcer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioners.

7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The only non-bailable offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 74 and 118(1) of BNS. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the above offences alleged are below seven years. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [ (2014) 8 SCC 273 ] the Hon’ble Apex Court observed like this:

7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police ofÏcer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police ofÏcer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case: or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a Witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police ofÏcer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

7.2. The law mandates the police ofÏcer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid. while making such arrest. The law further requires the police ofÏcers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

7.3. In pith and core, the police ofÏcer before arrest must put a question himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police ofÏcers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police ofÏcer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 Cr.P.C.

8. Keeping in mind the above dictum, this Court considered the prosecution case. I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the