Bail granted to accused No.2 with conditions due to lack of strong evidence, while accused No.1 denied bail due to serious criminal antecedents.

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 seeking regular bail.

2. The applicants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.2137/2025 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296 (b), 110 and 118(1) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

23.09.2025, at 9 30 p.m., at the walkway leading to the house of the defacto complainant, the applicant No.2, who is the father of the applicant No.1 had sprinkled sand on the eyes of the defacto complainant and after making him sightless had repeatedly beaten him using hand, while, the applicant No.1 had brandished a sword stick aiming at the neck of the defacto complainant, which, when the defacto complainant had warded off using his hand, he had sustained a cut injury to his middle finger. ln addition, the applicant No.1 had inflicted a cut injury below his left knee and thereby the applicants committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard Sri.Boby Thomas, the learned counsel for the applicants and Smt.M.K. Pushpalatha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to get bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and they are not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant No. 1 was arrested on 27.09.2025 and applicant No. 2 was arrested on 24.09.2025, and since then, they have been in judicial custody. The investigation is over, and the final report has already been filed. However, the report shows that applicant No.1 has strong criminal antecedents, and proceedings under the KAAPA have been initiated against him. It is also noted that a crime was registered against him for violation of the conditions imposed under the KAAPA Act. In such circumstances, I am of the view that even though the final report has been filed, applicant No.1 cannot be released on bail. Applicant No. 2 is the father of applicant No. 1 and is 50 years old. Only one antecedent, alleging offences punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 8, 5(m), and 11(i)(ii)

of the POCSO Act, has been registered against him. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that further detention of applicant No. 2 is not necessary. Hence, applicant No. 2 is entitled to be released on bail In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -

(i) The applicant No.2 shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicant No.2 shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The applicant No.2 shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. on every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicant No.2 shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicant No.2 shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The applicant No.2 shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permi