Criteria for anticipatory bail require examination of the nature of the alleged offence, prima facie evidence, and mens rea, confirming presumption of innocence.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1598 of 2025 of Paravoor Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296 (b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( for short ‘BNS’).

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

“On 06.10.2025 at 05.30 pm., the petitioner had assaulted the complainant aged 24 years by striking his hand with an iron rod apart from applying other criminal force on him.” [sic.]

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had not used any of the weapons as alleged. It is further submitted that the petitioners did not have the mens rea for the commission of the alleged offences. The case of the petitioners is that the present crime has been registered due to previous enmity towards them. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioners and contended that their custodial interrogation is required.

7. I have gone through the Case Diary. The petitioners have established a prima facie case for obtaining the benefit of Section 482 of the BNSS .

8. 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 petitioners in the commission of the offences is doubtful.

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 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 the public or the State” are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 3 SCR 622 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 216] , which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the surv