IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 9198 OF 2025 CRIME NO.501/2025 OF Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

1 PRAJEESH AGED 34 YEARS S/O PRINCE, MECHERY HOUSE, ARATTUVAZHI, NJARAKKAL P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682505

2 SANU K.S AGED 30 YEARS S/O SASI K.N, KUYILIPADATH HOUSE, OPPOSITE BEENA NURSING HOME, NJARAKKAL P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682505

3 NIKHILRAJ M.S AGED 33 YEARS S/O SURESH, MARATHARA HOUSE, NJARAKKAL P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682505 BY ADVS.

SMT.A.S.CHINJU DUTH SHRI.MONSY K.V RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682505 SMT. SREEJA V., PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

25.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

......….............................................

B.A.No.9198 of 2025 …................................................

Dated this the 25^th day of September, 2025

ORDER

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

2. Petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.501 of

2025 of Njarakkal Police Station, Ernakulam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and

117(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, on

03.05.2025, assaulted the de facto complainant, who is the former security personnel of a Bar hotel and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard Adv.Chinju Dutha S.,the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have been falsely arrayed as accused and that they have no involvement in the alleged crime and, therefore, they ought to be granted anticipatory bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary.

7. The prosecution allegations indicate that petitioners, along with other accused, had assaulted the de facto complainant using their hands, legs and a beer bottle. A nasal bone fracture was sustained. Further injuries include two lacerated wounds and an abrasion, that has been inflicted. However, considering the nature of injuries and also the manner in which the crime was committed, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary.

8. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, [(2020) 5 SCC 1], it was held that, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

9. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and that petitioners ought to be released on pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Offic