Anticipatory bail is denied when evidence reveals specific involvement in violent offenses.

O R D E R

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

2. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.1010/2024 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are punishable under Section s 296 (b), 126(2), 115(2) and 118(1) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023.

3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure 2 order, reads thus:-

“On account of the previous enmity, on 15.09.2024 at 7 p.m., accused 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 attacked the informant and on seeing his son being attacked by the accused persons, the informant’s father rushed to the spot and tried to prevent the 1^st accused from attacking his son. At that time, the 1^st accused took a chopper and struck on the head of the informant’s father. The informant’s father suffered a deep wound in the attack. While the informant was trying to rush towards the injured father, the 1^st accused gave a blow on his head with the chopper, which fell on the right side of the forehead of the informant, resulting in a deep wound. He has also suffered a deep wound on the wrist portion of his right hand. Seeing that the local people were rushing to the spot, accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 attempted to escape from the spot. When the informant was trying to take his injured father to the hospital, the

2^nd accused took an iron rod and hit on his right ear.” [sic]

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that accused No.5 was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court and accused Nos.3 and 4 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the offences alleged. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also not required, the learned counsel submitted.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner. It is submitted that the prosecution records reveal the specific involvement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner used an iron rod and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the victim. It is further submitted that accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 were granted anticipatory bail on the ground that there were no specific overt acts alleged against them.

7. I have gone through the Case Diary, which reveals that the petitioner used an iron rod against the victim. The victim sustained the following injuries in the incident :- “Undisplaced fracture of left parietal bone with adjacent scalp swelling and hematoma and surgical emphysema”.

8. In view of the allegations against the petitioner, I feel that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

9. However, the petitioner is granted a week’s time to appear before the Investigating Officer. If the Investigating Officer effects arrest of the petitioner, and upon his production before the jurisdictional court, if the petitioner makes an application seeking regular bail, the Court shall dispose of the application preferably on the same day itself.

The Bail Application stands dismissed.