Court differentiated bail eligibility based on involvement degree, denying bail to the principal accused while granting it to others due to lesser involvement.

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 8 in Crime No.904/2025 of Kunnamkulam police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 351(3), and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023( BNS ).

3. The prosecution case is that the accused assaulted the defacto complainant on 27.07.2025 and the 1^st accused hit the defacto complainant with a hammer on his head leading to serious injuries and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. Petitioners were arrested on 29.07.2025 and they have been in custody, since then.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. On a reading of the FIR, it is seen that the accused have assaulted the defacto complainant using a helmet, while the 1^st accused took out a hammer and hit the defacto complainant on his head, resulting in serious injury. The remaining accused have also used their hands to assault the defacto complainant.

6. Though the allegations are serious as against all the accused, since the 1^st accused is alleged to have used a dangerous weapon, I am of the view that the case against him has to be treated differently. As far as accused Nos.2 to 8 are concerned, since the nature of overt acts reflect that they have not used any weapon of offence and considering the period of custody already undergone by them, those accused can be released on bail.

7. As far as the 1^st accused is concerned, since the offence under Section 109 BNS has been incorporated and he is alleged to have used a hammer to inflict a head-injury on the defacto complainant, I am of the view that the said accused cannot be granted bail. Though the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the 4^th petitioner is involved in 4 other crimes, while petitioners 5, 7 and 8 are involved in one other crime each, I am of the view that considering the period of custody already undergone and the nature of allegations in the present case, those antecedents need not deter this Court from granting bail to those petitioners.

In the result, this bail application is allowed in part. The bail application of the 1^st petitioner is dismissed, while the bail application of petitioners 2 to 8 are allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioners 2 to 8 shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioners 2 to 8 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) Petitioners 2 to 8 shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioners 2 to 8 shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.

(e) Petitioners 2 to 8 shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.