Anticipatory bail denied to primary accused due to serious allegations; conditional bail granted to others.

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J --------------------------------------

B.A No.14432 of 2025 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2025 O R D E R This is an application seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1998/2025 of Kottayam East Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 3 29 (3), 118(2), 115(5) and 118(1) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution allegation is that the accused due to a previous animosity on 10.11.2025 at 10.30 pm criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant’s brother situated at Manganam and the 1^st accused struck on the left hand of the defacto complainant using an iron rod causing fracture. In the meantime, the 2^nd and the 3^rd accused beat on the shoulder of the defacto complainant using their hands. Moreover, the 1^st and the 2^nd accused beat on the head of the defacto complainant’s wife and the 1^st accused hacked the defacto complainant’s son using a sword stick.

4. Heard Sri.Surin George Ipe, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them. According to the counsel, on the same day prior to the incident in this case, the defacto complainant, along with his relatives and his friends, trespassed into the house of petitioners and unleashed violence in a beastly manner and assaulted the petitioners brutally. According to the learned counsel, in the said incident, very serious injuries were inflicted on the petitioners as well as their family members using dangerous weapons and with respect to the said incident a case has been registered as Crime No.2000/ 2025 of Kottayam East Police Station. According to the counsel, in order to escape from the said case, the present case is foisted against the petitioners by the defacto complainant with the support of the police.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accusation against the petitioners in the case at hand is a serious one, and the nature of the allegations against the petitioners itself suggests that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the investigation in this case is in the preliminary stage and the weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence is not yet recovered. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, granting anticipatory bail at this stage will hamper the investigation, which is in the threshold.

7. A perusal of the available records reveals that the accusation against the petitioners is prima facie well founded. The allegation that the petitioners, who belong to the same family, trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked his family members using dangerous weapons cannot be viewed lightly. There is a specific allegation that the 1^st accused, who is the 1^st petitioner herein, had struck the shoulder of defacto complainant using an iron rod which, resulted in a fracture of shoulder bone. Similarly, there is an allegation that the 1^st accused hacked the defacto complainant’s son using a sword.

8. A perusal of the wound certificate pressed into service by the learned Public Prosecutor would reveal that injuries corresponding to the overt act attributed to the 1^st petitioner is noted in the medical examination of the injureds conducted immediately after the incident.

9. Anyhow, by producing the c