Bail granted considering detention period, non-grievous injuries, and advanced investigation stage despite serious assault allegations.

ORDER

This petition seeking regular bail has been filed by accused nos.4 and 7 to 9 in Crime No.510/2026 of Sasthamkotta Police Station registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1) & 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

2. The prosecution allegation is that the accused Nos.1 to 8, due to prior enmity towards the defacto complainant, on 05.04.2026 at about 11:00 pm, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon and in prosecution of their common object of committing murder of the defacto complainant, at Vilanthara Mankootam Colony Road in West Kallada Village, while the defacto complainant and his brother were travelling on a scooter, the accused persons, who were following them in a jeep and motorcycles, intentionally rammed their scooter, causing them to fall down on the road. Immediately thereafter, all the accused persons, attacked the defacto complainant and his brother with iron rods and wooden sticks. They also snatched the helmet of the defacto complainant’s brother and assaulted him using the same. The accused No.1 struck the defacto complainant on his head with a weapon in his possession, with such intention and knowledge, and under such circumstances, that if by that act death had been caused, he would have been guilty of murder. The accused Nos.2 to 8 also assaulted the defacto complainant repeatedly with dangerous weapons like iron rods and and wooden sticks, and criminally intimidated them by shouting that they would be killed and kicked them by uttering abusive words. As a result of the aforesaid acts, the defacto complainant sustained injuries on his head and face. Thus the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1) & 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them and they were incorporated in the array of accused in this case on the basis of some mistaken identity. According to the petitioners, apart from making an omnibus allegation that all the accused, including the petitioners, had attacked the defacto complainant and his brother with dangerous weapons, no specific overt act is attributed to any of the petitioners herein. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners were arrested in this case on 08.04.2026 and since then they are in custody. Moreover, it was pointed out that the 1^st petitioner’s sister’s marriage is scheduled to be held on 03.05.2026 and the 1^st petitioner is very much desirous of attending the marriage of his sister. On these premises, it was urged that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

6. The allegation that in the wee hours on 05.04.2026, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and his brother in a public place with dangerous weapons and inflicted injuries on them cannot be viewed lightly. There is specific allegation that all the accused used weapons in the commission of the offence and specific overt acts are attributed to them. Any how, even the prosecution does not have a case that any of the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant is grievous in nature. Moreover, the petitioners were arrested in this case on 08.04.2026 and since then they are under custody. From the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is discernible that the major part of the weapons allegedly used in the commission of offence have already been recovered.