The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should be granted based on the nature of allegations and context, rather than solely on the severity of accusations.

O R D E R

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

2. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.896/2025 of Ottappalam Police Station, Palakkad. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) and 110 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

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

“..on 06.10.2025 at 20.30 hours, at Pathiripala Pookkattukunnu road, accused Nos.1 to 5, due to enmity that a complaint was lodged for beating and injuring a person named Abdul Azeez against the friends of accused No.1, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, accused No.1 stabbed him with a knife on the muscle of the left hand, accused No.2 hit him with a stone on the fingers of the left hand, accused No.3 kicked him on the chest and accused Nos.4 and 5 beat him with their hands on the body. Thereby the defacto complainant sustained injuries. If the defacto complainant had not blocked the stab by accused No.1 by using his hand, he would have sustained serious injury on the chest resulting in his death for which accused Nos. 2 to 5 helped and instigated each other.” [sic].

4. The case of the petitioner is that he happened to be a friend of the other accused, and due to a misunderstanding, he has been arrayed as an accused. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not commit any overt act. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, even according to the prosecution, the only overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he stamped on the chest of the defacto complainant. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner used any weapon.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has criminal antecedents.

8. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court inGurbaksh 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 an