Court emphasized the necessity of evaluating the severity of the accused's actions when granting bail, particularly in relation to cumulative allegations.

ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short ' BNSS '), seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the 4thaccused in Crime No.1784/2025 of Kattappana Police Station, Idukki, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296(b), 333, 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 351(1) and 324(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos. 1 to 15 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of thier common object they trespassed into the house of one Arun Chandran, the friend of the de facto complainant, and the 1^st accused struck on the head of Arun chandran with an iron rod and the other accused assaulted him using stick and by their hands and also committed mischief by smashing the window panes and damaging the back door of the house. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations leveled against him and he was arrayed as an accused in this case on the basis of mistaken identity. According to the counsel, if at all the prosecution case is believed, the maximum offence that would attract the petitioner is under Section 115(1) of BNS. The learned counsel further urged that even the prosecution does not have a case that the accused had used any weapon in the commission of the offence. According to the learned counsel, when compared with the other remaining accused, the accusation against the petitioner stands on a lower pedestal, and his custodial interrogation is unwarranted for the progress of the investigation in this case. On the said premise, the learned counsel sought pre- arrest bail.

6. Per contra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the application by highlighting the serious nature of the offence attributed in this case. Moreover, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a history sheeter registered with three other criminal cases.

7. The allegation that the petitioner, along with his companions, unleashed violence in broad daylight and attacked the de facto complainant with dangerous weapons after trespassing into his house cannot be viewed lightly. From the available inputs, it is gatherable that the accusation against the petitioner is, prima facie, well founded. Anyhow, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no allegation that the petitioner, who is arrayed as the fourth accused in this case, used any weapon in the commission of the offence. The overt act attributed to him is that he fisted the complainant with his bare hands. Although the same is not a reason to justify the criminal act attributed to him, particularly when there is an allegation that the offence was committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly in which he was having membership, it can still be taken into consideration while considering a petition of this nature.

8. Moreover, accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5, and 6 were already arrested in this case. The weapons allegedly used by them in the commission of the offence have already been recovered. As there is no allegation of any use of a weapon by the 4th accused, no recovery of any weapon needs to be effected at his instance. Virtually, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all necessary in this case. I am not unmindful of the submiss