IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 12TH ASWINA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 6715 OF 2024 CRIME NO.403/2024 OF KOLAVALLUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

1 SHARAFUDHEEN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O SOOPY HAJI,PEEDIKAYULLA PARAMBATH, KOLAVALLUR, THUVAKKUNNU, KANNUR, PIN - 670693

2 JAFAR. P P, AGED 42 YEARS S/O SOOPY HAJI, PEEDIKAYULLA PARAMABTH, KOLAVALLUR, THUVAKKUNNU, KANNUR-, PIN - 670693 BY ADVS.

BONNY BENNY AMALJITH ANGEL WILSON E.

SHENI KRISHNA R.N.

VISHNU NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLAVALLUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670693.

BY SMT SEETHA S SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

04.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2024 The application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No. 403/2024 of the Kolavallur Police Station, Kannur, which is registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1), and 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘the BNS’ for short), 2023. Subsequently, Section 118(2) of the BNS was also incorporated.

3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 21.07.2024, at around 21:30 hours, while the defacto complainant and his four friends were fishing in a paddy field, the first accused assaulted the defacto complainant on his face with the torch, and he suffered grievous injuries. Then, the second accused threatened the defacto complainant and his friends that they would be murdered. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri. Bonny Benny, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Seetha.S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. There is no material to substantiate the petitioners’ culpability in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 118(2) of the BNS without any cogent material. The petitioners are law-abiding citizens without any criminal antecedents. The petitioners’ 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. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioners’ involvement in the crime. The first petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant and his friends with the torch and inflicted grievous injuries on the defacto complainant. She made available the Accident Register- Cum-Wound Certificate of the defacto complainant and other injured issued by the Community Health Centre, Panoor, dated 21.07.2024, and also the treatment certificate of the defacto complainant issued by the Thalassery Co-operative Hospital, dated 24.07.2024, to substantiate that the defacto complainant suffered a nasal bone fracture. She stated that there is a specific overt act alleged against the first petitioner. The first petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected. If the first petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper the full and proper investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the only allegation against the second petitioner is that he intimidated the defacto complainant and his friends that he would murder them.

7. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners had wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and h