The court clarified anticipatory bail principles, emphasizing that it should be granted when accusations lack merit, support the presumption of innocence, and recognize individual freedom while ensuring investigative integrity.

ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1004/2025 of Balussery Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 351(2) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

3. The prosecution case is that on 05.09.2025 at 05.00 P.M., the petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to the defacto complainant by means of a knife. According to the prosecution, the victim sustained stab injury to his right thigh.

4. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The defacto complainant is a close friend of the petitioner. On the eve of Onam, he approached the petitioner in a drunken stage and demanded money. The petitioner refused to give money. Enraged on that, the victim attacked him with a silver ring in which the petitioner sustained injuries. A scuffle occurred, the victim fell upon a sharp edged stone, in which he sustained injuries.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim has suppressed the real facts and filed a complaint alleging false allegations. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure-II, O.P. card issued from the Government Medical College, Kozhikode, to substantiate his contentions.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the ground that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required especially for the recovery of the weapon used.

7. I have gone through the Case Diary. The petitioner has established a prima facie case. There is a doubt in the genesis of the prosecution case.

8. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court inGurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v.State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] held thus:

“31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and “the larger interests of the public or the State” are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 3 SCR 622 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 216] , which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of