Anticipatory bail can be granted when the court finds no risk of absconding and considers the nature of accusations.

K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

B.A No.13423 of 2025 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2025 O R D E R This is an application seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.2132/2025 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 3124(4), 118(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure A2 order, reads thus:

“On 19.10.2025 at about 8.30 p.m., in front of the residence of the defacto complainant, situated at Chiramukku in Manacaud Village, the 1^st accused uttered obscene words against the defacto complainant and fisted him on his left side of rib. At that time, the 3^rd accused caught hold of the neck of the defacto complainant and the 1^st accused hit on the left side of his eye and cheek and beat him on the left side of his rib, using a reaper. Thereafter, the 2^nd accused fisted the defacto complainant on the left side of ear and back. In the incident, the defacto complainant lost his gold chain locket, worth Rs.45,000/-.”[SIC]

4. The case of the petitioner as narrated in Annexure A2 order, reads thus:

“On 19.10.2025, while the petitioner and his friends were lightning firecrackers in front of his house, the defacto complainant reached there in an inebriated state, carrying a wooden plank. Thereafter, he uttered obscene words against the petitioner and others and attempted to attack the petitioner with the wooden plank. At that time, the friends of the petitioner intervened and they dissuaded the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the defacto complainant leveraging political influence has filed a false case against the petitioner and his friends.”[SIC]

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

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he beat the defacto complainant using a reaper.

7. The case of the petitioner is that the defacto complainant attempted to attack the petitioner and the other accused with a reaper, at the scene of occurrence, in an intoxicated condition. It is the case of the petitioner that even if he had sustained an injury that might have been caused by the reaper he had possessed.

8. The case of the petitioner is that, due to a mistaken identity, he has been implicated as an accused.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

10. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section

438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia 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 effec