Anticipatory bail granted due to absence of mens rea and strong prima facie case.

O R D E R

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

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.2 has been arrested by the Police.

3. Therefore, the Bail Application as against petitioner No.2 is closed as infructuous.

4. Petitioner No.1 is accused No.4 in Crime No.815/2025 of Neyyar Dam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against petitioner No.1 and the other accused are punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 296(b), 329(3), 115(2), 118(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

5. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure – 1, order, reads thus:-

“...Accused Nos. 1 to 5 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, on 12.08.2025 at about 7.30p.m., trespassed into the courtyard of the residence of the defacto complainant situated near Perinchamkadavu Junction in Kallikkadu Village, and the 1^st accused uttered obscene words against the wife of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, accused No. 2 caught on the neck and hand of the daughter of the defacto complainant and when the defacto complainant questioned the said act, the 2^nd accused, by using a traditional lamp, beat on the right eye of the defacto complainant and fell him down. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 to 4 together have kicked and beat the defacto complainant. [sic].

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The case of petitioner No.1 is that at the place of occurrence a quarrel occurred between the defacto complainant and the other accused. Petitioner No.1 only attempted to pacify the situation. It is submitted that no specific overt acts have been alleged against him.

8. The learned counsel for petitioner No.1 submitted that petitioner No.1 and the other accused had no mens rea in the commission of the alleged offences, which is evident from the weapon allegedly used. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied her mind while rejecting the bail plea. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner No.1 is prepared to co-operate with the investigation.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of petitioner No.1.

10. I have gone through the Case Diary, which reveals that the incident occurred during a scuffle, and that the victim sustained the injury when he fell to the ground.

11. On a consideration of the entire materials, I am of the view that petitioner No.1 has established a strong prima facie case for getting anticipatory bail.

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:

(a) Petitioner No.1 shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 28.11.2025 between

10.00 AM and 11.00 AM for interrogation.

(b) The Investigating Officer is directed to release petitioner No.1 on bail, in the event he is arrested, on his executing bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.