Anticipatory bail can be granted despite criminal antecedents if false implication is plausible; presumption of innocence is paramount.

K.BABU, J.

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

B.A No.11273 of 2025 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 19^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.573/2025 of Vidyanagar Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 351(2) and 109 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure A3 order, reads thus:

“On 24.07.2025 at about 9 pm at Cherkkala in Chengala Village, the petitioners along with other accused in furtherance of their common intention, attacked the defacto complainant with a knife and an iron rod and inflicted serious injury to him.”[SIC]

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been implicated as an accused as a counterblast to Annexure A2 FIR registered against the defacto complainant and three others based on the complaint filed by Nafeesath Thasniya C M, who is the wife of the accused No.7. The specific case of the petitioner is that the attempt of the defacto complainant is to falsely implicate the petitioner and his relatives.

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

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though in Annexure A1 FIR, the defacto complainant had specifically mentioned the names of the petitioner and two other persons namely Shebeer and Hashim as the persons who assaulted him, in the further investigation it is found that Shebeer and Hashim were not at the place of occurrence at the relevant time, and the Investigating Officer filed a report deleting them from the array of the accused. The learned counsel further submitted that accused Nos.2 to 4 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court. It is submitted that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out, in view of the fact that the de facto complainant had made false statements in his initial version. It is submitted that the genesis of the prosecution case is doubtful.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused Nos.2 to 4 were granted bail on the ground that the FIR did not mention their names and no specific overt acts were alleged against them. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. Relying on the wound certificate, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim sustained a head injury with a fracture of left parietal bone, fracture of right third metacarpal bone and lacerations and abrasions on various parts of the body.

8. Admittedly, the names of two persons referred to in Annexure A1 FIR were deleted during the course of investigation. The petitioner has a specific case that the attempt of the defacto complainant is to falsely implicate him and some of his relatives, as a counterblast to the incident in which the wife of accused No.7 was assaulted by the defacto complainant and some others.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure A2 to substantiate his contention.

10. I have gone through the Case Diary. The fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedents is not a ground to refuse anticipatory bail, if it is found that the elements of false implication cannot be ruled out.

11. 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