Anticipatory bail can be granted if accusations appear motivated by ulterior motives, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and need for careful judicial consideration.

K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

B.A No.12988 of 2025 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2025 O R D E R This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.

2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.933/2025 of Edathala Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3)

read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

3. The prosecution case as narrated in Anx.A2 order reads thus:

“On 17.09.2025 at About 04.15 p.m the accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, intimidated him and physically assaulted him with an iron rod causing injuries to him. (sic)”

4. The case of the petitioner as narrated in Anx.A2 order reads thus:

“The case arose out of the personal animosity between second accused student and the defacto complainant and his friends. The second petitioner is a student of Bharat Mata School of Legal Studies, Choondi Aluva. The defacto complainant along with his friends who are final year students subjected the second petitioner to ragging. They inflicted injuries to the second petitioner and caused fracture of his nasal bone. Though the issue was taken up later it was closed without further proceedings at the intervention of political party to which the defacto complainant belongs. The defacto complainant and friends continued the grudge against the second petitioner and several occasions threatened him with dire consequences.

On 17.09.2025, the first petitioner who is the father of the second petitioner, went to the college to pick up his son. At that time the defacto complainant and his friends attacked both petitioners. Fearing that there may be action against the defacto complainant and his friends for ragging and the assault on the petitioners, a false case is foisted upon the petitioners.” (sic)

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

6. Relying on Anxs.A3 to A5, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present crime has been registered as a counter-blast to the FIR registered against the defacto complainant and the others based on the complaint filed by accused No.2/son of the petitioner.

7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner.

8. I have gone through the Case Diary. On perusal of the Case Diary, I feel that the petitioner has established a prima facie case for getting the benefits contained in Section 482 of the BNSS .

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 ef