IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 26TH VAISAKHA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 5324 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1822/2024 OF Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER / ACCUSE D :

RAVEENDRAKUMAR. C @ KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O CHARLES, RESIDING AT ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, NENNAMKUZHI, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, PAYATTUVILA, KATTACHALKUZHI P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695501 BY ADVS.

P.K.VARGHESE M.T.SAMEER JERRY MATHEW DEVIKA K.R.

SAWPARNIKA RAJU RESPONDENT / COMPLAINAN T :

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV.SRI T R RENJITH, SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

16.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

-----------------------------------------------

B.A.No.5324 of 2025 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 16^th day of May, 2025.

O R D E R

The application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNSS’), for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.1822 of 2024 of Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2) and Section 74 read with Section

3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNS’).

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

23.11.2024, the accused 1 to 3 trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked him and his relatives. The first accused uttered obscene words against the defacto complainant and repeatedly hit him on his head with a helmet and when he fell down, the second accused kicked him on his abdomen and back. When the sister of the defacto complainant attempted to intervene in the matter, the first accused pulled her by her leg, tore her night dress and outraged her modesty. Thereafter, the first accused kicked the wife of defacto complainant on her back. The second accused fisted on the face of the son-in-law of the defacto complainant and caused grievous hurt to him. When the defacto complainant attempted to escape from the scene, the third accused caught hold of him and accused 1 and 2 fisted him. Thus, the accused persons have committed the above offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. A reading of the First Information Report would undoubtedly reveal that specific overt acts are attributed against accused 1 and 2. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he restrained the defacto complainant from fleeing from the scene of occurrence. There is no specific overt act attributed against the petitioner. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary. Therefore, the application may be allowed.

6. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary. The Court of Session has already dismissed the application of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it is evident that the only overt act alleged against the petitioner is that, he restrained the defacto complainant from fleeing from the scene. It is alleged that, it was accused 1 and 2 who assaulted the injured persons. 8. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, and the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner for having committed the non-bailable offences, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out valid grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Secti