Bail granted to accused with minor role in serious offence due to parity, no weapon use, and progressed investigation.

ORDER

This application seeking regular bail has been filed by the fourth accused in Crime No.308/2026 of the Alathur Police Station, registered, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short BNS).

2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 13.03.2026 at 9.45 p.m., due to a prior animosity, the first accused, in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused, attempted to murder the de facto complainant by stabbing on his stomach with a knife. Moreover, accused Nos. 1 to 4 voluntarily caused hurt to the de facto complainant’s friends named Sajith, Ishak and Manav, by hitting them with their hands and dangerous weapons. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the aforementioned offences.

3. Heard Sri. V. A. Johnson, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sanal P. Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the available records.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegation levelled against him. According to the learned counsel, no serious overt acts are attributed to the petitioner and the third accused, who faces the same allegations as that of the petitioner, has already been granted bail by this Court, and the principles of parity entitle the petitioner to get bail. Moreover, it is pointed out that the investigation in this case has progressed substantially, rendering further judicial custody unnecessary.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by highlighting the serious nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner.

6. The allegation that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, attacked the de facto complainant, resulting in the latter sustaining a stab injury, cannot be viewed lightly. Although there is a specific allegation that the offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused, it is relevant to note that it was the first accused who allegedly inflicted the stab injury on the de facto complainant. At the same time, I am not unmindful of the allegation that the petitioner, who is arrayed as the fourth accused, had also actively participated in the occurrence by attacking the friends of the de facto complainant, who intervened to rescue him from further assault.

7. Evidently, the petitioner was arrested on 15.04.2026 and has remained in judicial custody since then. When compared to the first accused, the role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the offence stands on a relatively lower footing. The overt acts alleged against the petitioner are not of a grave nature. There is no allegation that he used any weapon in the commission of the offence. Notably, no criminal antecedents have been attributed to the petitioner.

Considering all the above-mentioned aspects, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions;

(i) The Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for a period of three months or until the final report is filed, whichever occurs first.

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

(iv) The Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdic