The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion, guided by the seriousness of allegations and necessity for custodial interrogation.

ORDER

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 [for short, ‘ BNSS ’].

2. Petitioners are accused 1 to 6 and 8 in Crime No,277/2025 of Kadinakulam Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 189(4), 191(2), 190, 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that on 16.03.2025 the accused, due to an animosity, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object slapped the de facto complainant and assaulted his father with a reaper while some of the accused hit him on the nose, and forehead with the key of a scooter and also stabbed him, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners have been falsely arrayed as accused and they have no involvement in the alleged crime.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that during the course of investigation, offence punishable under Section 118 (2) BNS has been added, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners are essential for the recovery of weapons.

6. Considering the rival submissions, this Court notices that though initially petitioners were not alleged to have committed the offences under Section 118 (2) of BNS, the said offence was subsequently added. Considering the nature of offences alleged against the petitioners and the requirement of recovery of weapons, it is evident that custodial interrogation is necessary. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged assault resulting in a grievous hurt was committed by the first accused alone, the same is a matter to be ascertained during investigation. At this juncture this Court cannot bifurcate the overt-acts alleged against the different accused.

7. InSushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 (5) SCC 1 , it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

8. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that the allegations are serious in nature, and interrogation of the petitioners is essential. Having regard to the nature of the offences alleged and the severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that petitioners are not entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.

9. Accordingly, this application is dismissed however subject to the following conditions:

(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 26.05.2025 and shall subject themselves to interrogation.

(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioners, then, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional court without undue delay.

(c). If after production of the petitioners before the jurisdictional court, any application for bail is filed, the court shall consider the same in accordance with law.