The court emphasizes the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity of preserving the investigatory process, denying anticipatory bail.

ORDER

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

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1716/2025 of Kollam West Police Station registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 296 (b), 115(2), 118(1) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’).

3. The prosecution allegation is that on 21/10/2025, at about 08:30 p.m., while the accused and others were consuming liquor in a workshop, the defacto complainant complainant questioned their act. The first accused who got infuriated by the same, abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and struck on his head with an iron rod. Moreover, the accused beat and kicked him repeatedly. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the aforementioned offences.

4. Head Sri. Pradeesh Chacko, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M.C. Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. According to the learned counsel, the ingredients to attract an offence under Section 118 (1) of the BNS are wanting in this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not at all required.

6. Per contra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the application by highlighting the serious nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner. According to the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the investigation in this case is in the threshold and grating of bail at this stage would certainly hamper the investigation.

7. From a perusal of the records, it is gatherable that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie well founded. The allegation that the accused struck on the head of the de-facto complainant using a dangerous weapon, regardless of his safety and security cannot be viewed lightly. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the investigation in this case is in the preliminary stage. The weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence is yet to be recovered. While considering the present bail application, the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body where injury inflicted etc. also cannot be overlooked. Considering all these aspects, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

8. The Bail Application stands dismissed.