The court established that anticipatory bail may be granted where prima facie evidence suggests potential self-defense against allegations of grievous harm.

O R D E R

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

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1528/2025 of Pandalam Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 296 (b), 126(2), 118(1), 118(2), 115(2) and

351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure 2 order, reads thus:-

“ On 05.11.2025, at about 11.30 A.M., at a place namely Kanakavilasam padi, while the defacto complainant was plying his autorickshaw bearing Reg. No. KL-26-9714, the petitioner had intercepted the autorickshaw and intimidating the defacto complainant with death, the petitioner had repeatedly punched on the face of the defacto complainant using a metallic ring and stamped on his chest and right knee using leg, resulting fracture to the nasal bone of the defacto complainant.”(sic)

4. The case of the petitioner is that he sustained injuries at the hands of the defacto complainant, and as a counterblast, the present crime has been registered against him.

5. I have heard Adv. John Sebastian Ralph. V., the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the Discharge Summary issued in the name of the petitioner from the NSS Medical Mission Hospital, Pandalam, submitted that the petitioner sustained injuries on the date of the occurrence, when the defacto complainant assaulted him. The Discharge Summary issued in the name of the petitioner shows that he sustained injuries on 05.11.2025 and obtained treatment from the hospital on the same day.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that to attract the offence under Section 118 of the BNS, the specific intention of the assailant to cause the injury is required. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the Explanation to Section 117 of the BNS, submitted that a person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, contending that the intention of the petitioner is evident from the overt acts alleged and the use of the dangerous weapon.

9. I have gone through the Case Diary. The petitioner has established a prima facie case for getting the benefits contemplated in Section 482 of the BNSS .

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer at 10.00 a.m. on

22.12.2025, for interrogation.

(ii) The Investigating Officer is directed to release the petitioner, on bail, in the event, he is arrested, on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

(v) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence.

(vi) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

(vii) If any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court will be at liberty to cancel the bail, in accordance with law. Sd/-