The court emphasizes balancing individual rights against public interest in granting anticipatory bail.

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.2 in Crime No.2252/2025 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 329(3), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure 4 order, reads thus:-

“…….on 12-10-2025, at about 10.30 p.m. after having trespassed into the premises of the residential house of the defacto complainant, hurling obscene words, the accused No.1 had slapped on the left cheek of the defacto complainant and intimidated him with death and thereafter, at 11.00 p.m., at a place namely Poykayil junction, the accused No.1 had wrongfully restrained and beaten the defacto complainant, while the petitioner had inflicted a cut injury on the left knee of the defacto complainant using a chopper and in addition, after having trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, both the accused had intimidated the parents of the defacto complainant and the petitioner had again attacked the defacto complainant using the same weapon. weapon”

[sic].

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present crime has been registered against the petitioner as a counterblast to the incident in which FIR No.2253/2025 of Adoor Police Station (Annexure 2) was registered based on a complaint filed by accused No.1 in FIR No.2252/2025. The learned counsel further submitted that accused No.1 was brutally attacked by the defacto complainant and his associates, in which he sustained fracture.

6. The case of the petitioner is that he only intervened in the incident to pacify the clash. In support of his contention, the petitioner relied on Annexure 2 FIR.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of 13 days in the registration of the crime, which, according to him, highlights the falsity of the allegations levelled against him.

8. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner and submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

9. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh 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