Court granted pre-arrest bail due to lack of connections to the alleged crime and prosecution delays.

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.16/2026 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 294(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 324(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

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

31.12.2025 at about 11:15 p.m., when the de facto complainant reached at a place near Iratta Kalunku Junction as per the phone call of the accused No.1, the accused No.2 uttered obscene words against the de facto complainant, kicked on his chest, and when he fell down, the accused No.1 by using a granite stone, hit him on his forehead, causing injuries. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 kicked and dragged the de facto complainant and the accused No.1 took the mobile phone from the pocket of the de facto complainant and threw it in a nearby canal, causing a loss of Rs.23,000/-.

4. I have heard Sri. Ananda Subramaniam, the learned counsel for the applicants and Smt. Sreeja.V, 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. Even though the alleged incident had taken place on 31.12.2025 at 11:15 p.m., the complaint was filed and FIR was lodged only on 06.01.2026. There is no explanation for the delay. That apart, even though the applicants were known to the de facto complainant, their names were not disclosed in the accident-cum-wound certificate. The de facto complainant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. Considering the allegations made against the applicants, their custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-

arrest bail to the applicants.

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

(i) The applicants 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 applicants shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting themselves to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

(iii) The applicants shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. They shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicants shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicants shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The applicants shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ARK APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 939 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXUR