The court determines that limited custody for interrogation and specific bail conditions are justified given the lack of direct allegations against the petitioner.

1. This is an application filed under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No. 3/2023 of Changaramkulam Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under S.143, S.147, S.148, S.149, S.308, S.323, S.324, S.326, S.342 and S.365 of Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case is that, on 24.12.2022 at 6.30 p.m, on account of animosity of the 1st accused towards the defacto complainant, the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, called the defacto complainant to a place, and thereafter assaulted him with dangerous weapons such as iron rod, thereby causing fracture of his hand. It is also alleged that, the defacto complainant was locked in a room in the house of one Vighesh. The crime was registered in such circumstances and as the petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case, this application for anticipatory bail is submitted.

4. Heard, Sri. Sarun Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

5. I have gone through the record. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 were already arrested by the police in connection with the investigation and the recovery of the weapons and other articles were affected. No criminal antecedents of the petitioner was brought to my notice. From the materials placed on record, the specific overt act against the petitioner is not seen alleged. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, limited custody of the petitioner for the purpose of interrogation would serve the ends of justice.
Therefore, this application is disposed of with the following conditions: -