The decision underscores the importance of personal liberty and judicial discretion in bail applications, emphasizing that detention should not hinder an accused's ability to prepare a defense.

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.59/2025 of Thondernadu Police Station, Wayanad. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 61(2)(a) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

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

“ Accused Nos.1 and 2 had hatched a Conspiracy to do away with Mukhim Ahammed, and in furtherance of that conspiracy, accused No.1 had purchased a knife from Keezhatta Mammootty's shop at 10th Mile in Vellamunda and a cardboard box from Adukkath Abdulla's house, and kept it in their house and thereafter accused Nos.1 and 2 had borrowed a scooter bearing Reg. No. KL 72 D 6663 belonging to Usman who is running a chicken stall in Kaappikandi Junction on 31.01.2025at 10:45am and gone to Kandathuvayal and borrowed a Redmi A2 mobile phone with SIM bearing No.7560950092 from one Abdulla who was standing by the road side under the pretext, that there was no charge in his phone and accused No.2 placed a call to Mukhim Ahammed's phone bearing No.9627594762 at 11:05 am and invited him to their quarters bearing door No.09/171 of Thondernadu Grama Panchayat owned by one Jitto Joseph Kallarakkal, situated at Velliladi, Kappikandi in Kanhirangadu Amsom and when Mukhim Ahammed arrived at the said quarters on the scooter bearing Reg. No. KL 56 G 7480 between 12:00 and 12:40pm, accused No.1 came inside the house and strangulated him to death from the kitchen using a towel and thereafter both the accused had cut his body into two and packed them in a bag and a cardboard box and transported it in a Goods Auto bearing registration No. KL 72 7499 belonging to CW1 and at about 19:30 hours disposed it under the Moolithode Bridge and the road side, and thereafter they cleaned the blood stains from the kitchen and destroyed the evidence, as accused No.1 had happened to see Mukhim Ahammed and accused No.2 in a compromising position when he returned to the quarters after work on 22.01.2025.”(sic)

4. The petitioner was arrested on 01.02.2025 and she has been in judicial custody since then.

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

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks regular bail on the following grounds :-

(a) The continued detention of the petitioner after the submission of the final report will adversely affect her defending the case.

(b) The grounds of her arrest were not communicated.

7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that while granting bail, the diabolic nature of the offence is to be considered. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is no possibility that she will participate in the trial.

8. The Case Diary has been placed before me. The Case Diary reveals that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner/arrestee and her near relatives.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying onPankaj Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576)], Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) 5 SCC 799 = (2025 KHC 6116), Ahmed Mansoor v. State (2025 KHC OnLine 7583), Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228) = (2025 KHC OnLine 6542), Shahina v. State of Kerala (2025 (5) KHC 203) andMihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 KHC OnLine 6915] submitted that the arrest and the subsequent remands are non est in the eye of the law. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relying on Pramod Prasannan v. State of Kerala, (2025 KHC OnLine 2238) sub