Court grants pre-arrest bail balancing the gravity of charges against one applicant and character of the other.

O R D E R

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 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.1193/2025 of Kattakkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296 (b), 351(3), 333 and 118(1) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the de facto complainant advanced an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the applicants for commencing a poultry farm. The said amount has been obtained by him by depositing his title deed before the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. The applicants agreed that they would clear the liability to the KSFE. But they have not discharged that liability. They have also misused the title deed of the de facto complainant for the purpose of availing loan to another person without the consent of the de facto complainant. Later the de facto complainant commenced litigation against the applicants. Out of that animosity, on 10.09.2025, at 3:15 pm, the applicants came to the residence of the de facto complainant, and uttered abusive language to the de facto complainant. It is further alleged that the applicants trespassed into the residential house of the de facto complainant situated at Kattakada and attacked his father. It is also alleged that the applicants attacked the de facto complainant's father with an iron rod and caused multiple injuries.

4. I have heard Sri. Jerry Mathew, the learned counsel for the applicants 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, 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. I went through the FIS and the wound certificate. The de facto complainant has sustained three fractures in the incident. There are specific allegations against the accused No.1/applicant No.2, who is the husband of the accused No.2/applicant No.1. It is the applicant No.2 who used the weapon. There is no allegation that the applicant No.1 has used any weapon. She is a lady aged 53 years. She has no criminal antecedents. Hence, I am of the view that she can be granted pre-arrest bail. However, considering the overt act alleged against the applicant No.2 and the nature of the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant No.2. Considering the allegations made against the applicant No.1, her custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant No.1.

In the result, the application is allowed in part on the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant No.1 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

(ii) The applicant No.1 shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting herself to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

(iii) The applicant No.1 shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.