The court established that anticipatory bail requires a justified basis for custodial interrogation, focusing on the nature of the alleged offenses and the applicant's role.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.1379 of

2025 of Irinjalakkuda Police Station, Thrissur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2)

and 110 r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to the prosecution, on 05.09.2025 at

3.45 p.m., the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted the de facto complainant with a plastic cone and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard Adv.Devya C., the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as an accused and that he has no involvement in the alleged crime and, therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary.

7. Petitioner and the other accused are alleged to have assaulted the de facto complainant with a plastic cone. While granting regular bail to accused 2 and 3, the learned Sessions Judge had observed that the fracture was inflicted due to a blow with the hands. Sections 118 (1) and 118(2) are attracted when the injury is caused by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance. The nature of allegations in the present crime does not indicate that petitioner or any of the accused used any such weapons as specified under Section 118 (1) of BNS. Of course, that is a matter to be finally identified during investigation.

8. As far as petitioner is concerned, in the absence of any such weapon used by him, I am of the view that it remains uncertain whether Section 118 (1) or (2) would be attracted. In the factual scenario, I am of the view that this bail application can be entertained, as relegating the petitioner to the Sessions Court at this stage would cause serious prejudice. 9.In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [ 2020 (5) SCC 1 ], it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

10. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh [ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 274 ], it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.

11. Having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, I am satisfied that petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-

arrest bail, subject to conditions.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 13.10.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.

(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thou