The court emphasized the presumption of innocence in anticipatory bail applications and the importance of judicial discretion in considering factors related to the accused's behavior and the nature of the allegations.

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 the sole accused in Crime No.803/2025 of Vandiperiyar Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

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

“Due to enmity towards the defacto complainant, on 23.09.2025 at O3:15 pm., the petitioner uttered obscene words against the defacto complainant in front of his courtyard at Nellimala Estate Layam, Vandiperiyar kara and assaulted behind his head by using a stick and also threatened to kill him.” [sic.]

4. The case of the petitioner, as narrated in Annexure-1 order reads thus:

“The petitioner is an employee of the POBES company as a Pump Operator. As per the directions and guidelines issued by the POBES company the petitioner supply water to the layam as specified intervals directed by the POBES Company. It is further submitted that the defacto complainant alone residing in the Estate Layam and he was always in a drunken mood and he was always lazy and he did not case to collect water as and when the pipe opens. So the defacto complainant always quarrelled against the petitioner and also tried to attack him and also talked in filthy languages.” [sic.]

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

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant is the aggressor. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations levelled against him.

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. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the circumstances in which the crime was registered, I am of the view that the mens rea of the petitioner in the commission of the offences is doubtful.

9. The petitioner has established a prima facie case for obtaining the benefit of Section 482 of the BNSS .

10. 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 enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and “the larger interests of