Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
BAIJU M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application No. 7401 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.S. Sumesh, K.G. Kailasnadh
For the Respondents: Prashanth M.P.
Anticipatory bail denied due to serious allegations involving grievous bodily harm and insufficient evidence for mental instability.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail application - The petitioner, second accused, alleged to have participated in a brutal assault causing grievous injuries - The court found no basis to dissect the allegations of involvement regarding the petitioner and the first accused - Dismissed due to serious nature of allegations. (Paras 2-6)
(B) The court evaluated the mental stability of the petitioner as presented in the records but found it insufficient to justify pre-arrest bail. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of a serious assault, resulting in significant bodily injury to the defacto complainant during an altercation attributed to personal enmity.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail due to the severity of allegations.
Issues: The court examined the nature of the assault and the sufficiency of evidence justifying bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that allegations against the accused were serious enough not to warrant anticipatory bail despite claims of lesser involvement.
Result: Bail application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of the assault and injuries sustained. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments made by the petitioner regarding mental stability. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's conclusion on bail application. (Para 8) |
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.337/2025 of Kunnicode Police Station, Kollam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 32 (c), 126(2), 296(b), 351(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’).
3. According to the prosecution, due to an enmity towards the defacto complainant, on 26.02.2025, the accused attacked the defacto complainant and inflicted grievous injuries. It is alleged that the accused 1 and 2 trespassed into the shop of the defacto complainant, and assaulted him when he tried to escape, the 1st accused again beat the defacto complainant on his left cheek with a thick object, consequent to which the defacto complainant lost a tooth and four teeth were loosened and also sustained fracture, and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Petitioner, who is the second accused in the crime, is alleged to have brutally assaulted the defacto complainant along with the first accused. The nature of injuries inflicted as a result of the assault includes fracture of the mandibles, loosening of four teeth, and other injuries on various parts of the body.
6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the main injuries were inflicted by the first accused, I am of the view that, considering the nature of allegations in the FIR, the overt acts of the first accused and the petitioner cannot be dissected for the purpose of identifying who inflicted the grievous injuries. Those are all matters for the investigating agency to identify. However, considering the nature of allegations, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail.
7. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Annexure 2 for the purpose of canvasing the proposition that he is not mentally stable, I am of the view that the said document cannot be a justification for the nature of allegations raised against the petitioner. Even otherwise, it is not evident from the records produced the date of such consultation which resulted in Annexure 2.
8. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
