A bail application for anticipatory bail can be granted if no specific overt act is alleged against the applicant, reaffirming the presumption of innocence.

O R D E R

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

2. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.930/2025 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable under Section s 126 (2), 296(b), 351(3), 118(1), 118(2) and 110 r/w Section

3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023.

3. The prosecution case as narrated in Annexure C order reads thus:-

“On 17.04.2025 at 05.30 PM, at place namely Chumathra, the petitioner along with the other accused persons had brutally attacked the defacto complainant using dangerous weapons, resulting grievous injuries to him.” [sic].

4. The case of the petitioner is that, he has no involvement in the offences alleged. It is submitted that he has been implicated in this case solely because he is a friend of the 2^nd accused. It is also submitted that he was not present at the scene of occurrence.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner.

8. I have gone through the Case Diary. The Case Diary reveals that no specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner and that the petitioner has not used any weapon as alleged.

9. 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 the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is f