The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should be granted when the allegations against the accused lack specific overt acts and the accused's health conditions are considered.

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.9 in Crime No.885/2025 of Kuttiyadi Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110 r/w Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

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

“Petitioner along with other 10 accused persons and 15 other persons have on 11.09.2025 at 09.30 p.m. formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and attacked the defacto complainant. The further case is that the victim was attacked by wooden rafters and iron rod. 1st accused has bet on the head of the victim with the iron rod, which was successfully warded off by the victim, otherwise, death would have been happened.” [sic.]

4. The case of the petitioner, as narrated in Annexure-A3 order reads thus:

“Petitioner would submit that he is never involved in the occurrence and he was falsely implicated. The only thing done by this petitioner is that when he came to know that a WhatsApp message propagated by the defacto complainant concerning the death of a respectable local inhabitant, petitioner called the defacto complainant over phone and expressed his disapproval to such defamation against this person. Beyond this petitioner has no connection with the defacto complainant. Moreover petitioner is an ailing patient who had already undergone neck surgery and is also under medical treatment. His health condition is so poorn Since arrest is apprehended, present petition is filed.” [sic.]

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 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, contending that his custodial interrogation is necessary.

8. I have gone through the Case Diary. It is revealed that no specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner. It is also revealed that it was the first accused who voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the victim by means of an iron rod. Though the allegation against the first accused is grave and the petitioner happened to be a member of the unlawful assembly, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the protection under Section

482 of the BNSS .

9. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh 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