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 second accused in Crime No.657/2024 of the Mannarkkad Police Station, Palakkad, which is registered against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC).

3. The concise case of the prosecution is that:

on 15.06.2024 between 20:00 hours and 20:30 hours, the accused persons, out of previous animosity towards the husband of the de facto complainant named Muhammed Nafi and with an intention to murder him, used dangerous weapons and assaulted him, and he suffered serious injuries. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.Muhammed Shafi M. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s culpability in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately implicated the petitioner as an accused without any sufficient material. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen without any criminal antecedents. The petitioner’s 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. She submitted that there is specific overt act alleged against the petitioner, who has inflicted grievous injuries on the injured. She made available the Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate dated 17.06.2024 issued by the Mother Care Hospital, Perinthalmanna, to substantiate that serious injuries suffered by the injured. She also submitted that the the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, since he is involved in six other crimes of Mannarkkad and Nattukal Police Stations for committing various offences under the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected for the proper investigation of the crime.

Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he assaulted the injured with dangerous weapons and he suffered serious injuries. The said allegation prima facie stands corroborated by the Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate of the injured. However, the culpability of the petitioner is a matter to be investigated and ultimately decided after trial

8. In Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar [2024 KHC OnLine 6137] the Honourable Supreme Court, after referring to all the earlier decisions on the point, has observed in the following lines:

“8. It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under S.438, CrPC is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. (See the decision of this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v.

J.J.Mannan & Anr., 2010 (1) SCC 679).

xxx xxx xxx

24.We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts a