Bail is granted where the prosecution fails to present sufficient evidence linking the accused to the use of a weapon in a serious assault.

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking pre-

arrest bail.

2. The applicants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.620/2025 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, Palakkad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118(2), 126(2), 189(2) and 191(2) read with Section 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 05.06.2025 at

10.15 p.m., while the defacto complainant (second respondent) and his friend were travelling in a car and when they reached near Town bus stand, the applicants intercepted the car and hit the friend of the defacto complainant on his face and head, assaulted the defacto complainant by hand and thereafter applicant No.1 called some persons and they also came and assaulted his friend and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.John Sebastian Ralph V., the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri.T.K. Sandeep, the learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant and Sri.M.C. Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to get bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and if they are released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. Initially Section 118 (2) of BNS was not incorporated.

Later on, based on the medical report, the said section was incorporated. It is true that the case records would show that the defacto complainant has suffered subarachnoid hemorrhage, fracture of the occipital bone and fracture of the nasal bone in the incident. However, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the applicants, at present, there is nothing on record to show that the said injury was caused by the applicants with any weapon. FIS was given by the friend of the defacto complainant. In the FIS, he did not state at all that any weapon was used by the applicants.

On the other hand, his specific version was that he and the defacto complainant were assaulted by the applicants using their hands. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor made available to me the copy of the statement of the injured recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (Section 180 of BNSS ) which forms part of the case diary. The allegation in his Section 161 statement is that both the applicants assaulted him with their hands on his face and when he got out of the car, the applicants using something resembling to ‘punch’ assaulted him. The injured did not even specifically state that any weapon was used. The nature of weapon was also not mentioned.

7. In order to attract Section 118 (2) of BNS, hurt should be caused by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that no weapon has been recovered. Thus, in the investigation conducted so far, there is nothing on record to show that any weapon as described under Section 118 (2) of BNS has been used by the applicants. In these circumstances, though the injuries sustained by the injured are serious in nature, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicants.

In the result, the application is