Anticipatory bail granted with conditions, emphasizing the necessity of proper investigation amidst counter allegations.

O R D E R

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 sole accused in Crime No.2571/2025 of Kilimanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, registered alleging offences punishable underSections 296(b), 126(2), 118(1) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows; Due to an animosity that the de facto complainant had demanded the accused to return the money that was borrowed by the accused, on 20.11.2025 at 08:15 p.m, the accused invited the de facto complainant to a place called Vilakkottukonam under the pretext to give back the money and on reaching there the accused showered obscene words and assaulted the de facto complainant using an iron rod. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the aforementioned 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 levelled against him. According to him, on the previous day of the registration of this case, a case has been registered against the de facto complainant alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 118(1), 115(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 on the strength of the FIS given by the petitioner herein. According to the counsel, as a counter blast to the said case, the present case is foisted against the petitioner by the de facto complainant with the help of the police. On these premise, it is urged that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the application by highlighting that the investigation in this case is in the preliminary stage and granting of anticipatory bail will hamper the smooth course of the investigation.

7. From the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is discernible that, prior to the registration of the case against the petitioner, a case has been registered against the de facto complainant alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 118(1), 115(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1) (s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989. In order to substantiate the said fact, the copy of the FIR registered against the de facto complainant is seen produced along with this bail application. Evidently, it was after the registration of the said case, the present case is registered against the petitioner. However, registration of such a case alone is not a reason to enter into an automatic conclusion that the subsequent case registered is a cooked up one. However, when there is a case and counter, a holistic investigation is highly necessary to find out how the incident started, developed and ended. Moreover, when there is already a case registered against the de facto complainant, the chance of false implication cannot be ruled out abruptly. Therefore, a conclusive finding regarding the maintainability of the present case registered against the petitioner can be determined only after a full fledged investigation. However, in the order dismissing the anticipatory bail application filed before the Sessions Court by the petitioner, it is recorded that the de facto complainant had sustained only minor injuries. Likewise, no criminal antecedents are seen pointed o