The court ruled that minor injuries and ongoing disputes justified granting pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.465 of 2025 of Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 126 (2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 333, 351(2) and 324(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS')

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

18.03.2025 at about 9.30 PM, the accused Nos. 1 to 6 have trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant and the accused No.1/applicant, after uttering obscene words had beaten the son of the defacto complainant using a knife. The accused No.2 fisted the stepfather of the defacto complainant and when the defacto complainant, her mother and grandmother intervened, they were also beaten by the accused No.2 and thereafter the accused No.1/applicant stabbed on the left ear of the defacto complainant after destroying windows, chairs and pipe connections in the residence of the defacto complainant. The accused No.1/applicant wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant by putting her with fear of death placing the knife on her neck and thereby committed the offence.

4. I have heard Sri.K.R.Vinod, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.V.Sreeja, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to get bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The victim is the sister-in-law of the applicant and the wife of the accused No.2. The applicant is the brother of the accused No.2. I went through the FIS. A reading of the FIS would show that a long standing matrimonial dispute is pending between the accused No.2 and the victim. The victim and the accused No.2 were residing together at the house of the accused No.2 till eight months before the alleged incident. The FIS would further show that on the date of the incident, the applicant, accused No.2 and four others came to the house of the victim and there were some altercations. The prosecution version is that during the altercation, the stepfather of the victim sustained injury. The non-bailable offences alleged are under Sections 333 and 118(1) of BNS. The child of the accused No.2 was also residing along with the victim. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the entry by the accused No.2 along with his brother/applicant would attract Section 452 of IPC ( Section 333 of BNS). The remaining non- bailable offence alleged is under Section 118 (1) of BNS. As stated already, the injury sustained is minor in nature. That apart, a long standing dispute is pending between the parties and the alleged injury was sustained during an altercation. It is true that there are criminal antecedents against the applicant. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the nature of the injury sustained by the stepfather of the victim, the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary. For these reasons, it is a fit case where pre-arrest bail can be granted to the applicant.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on executing a