Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty must be protected unless compelling reasons justify arrest.

O R D E R

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. These Bail Applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order. The petitioners are accused in crime No. 821/2024 of Pallickal Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs. 296(b), 329(4), 115(2), 74, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ' BNS ')

3. The prosecution case is that on 10.11.2024,at

8.25 pm, the petitioner and his friend came to the ice plant and attacked the complainant and her husband.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only non-bailable offence is under Sec. 74 of the BNS . The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, Sec.74 of the is not attracted. The counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant sustained serious injuries. The counsel submitted that if this Court release the petitioner on bail, he will commit similar offence in future. The Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sec. 74 of the BNS . Whether the ingredients of Sec. 74 of the is attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. I do not want to make any observation about the same. The prosecution can prove the case through the oral evidence. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. But, the apprehension of the defacto complainant is to be protected. There can be a directions to the petitioner not to commit similar offence in future against the defacto complainant and if any such incident happened, the defacto complainant can approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail and in such situation, the jurisdictional court can pass appropriate orders, even though this order is passed by this Court.

7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870] , after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

8. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353] considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder.

“12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. ( Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self- esteem of a person. If the Investigating Offic