The principles of anticipatory bail require consideration of the individual's rights and circumstances, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.

2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.1204 of 2025 of Thampanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable under Sections 296 (b), 126(2), 118(1) and 115(1) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution case as narrated in Annexure 3 reads thus:

“On 05.09.2025 at about 3.30 a.m., while the defacto complainant was sitting on his scooter near a shop at Kannettumukku Junction, accused Nos.1 and 2 reached there and attempted to take away the key of his scooter. When the defacto complainant prevented the same, the 1^st accused uttered obscene words against him and slapped on his left cheek, and the 2^nd accused caught hold of his shirt and beat him on his face. Thereafter, the 1^st accused, by using an iron bangle repeatedly hit on his face, head, neck, right hand, back and chest, and when the defacto complainant fell down, the accused together kicked him all over his person. When the friend of the defacto complainant intervened, the 1^st accused back of his head.”

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The case of the petitioner is that, on 05.09.2025, when he, along with his friend, reached the place of occurrence, after participating in the preparation for the Onam celebration at a club located 300 meters away, they saw a commotion in the locality and they rushed to the scene. In the incident, the friend of the petitioner sustained a head injury. According to the petitioner, he only pacified a fighting group and he has not committed any acts as alleged.

6. Having regard to the circumstances brought out, I am of the view that the mens rea of the petitioner in the commission of offence is doubtful.

7. 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 anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 3 SCR 622 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 216] , which, though, was a case