Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.314 of 2025 of
Mattancherry Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged
Sections 118(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case as narrated in Annexure B order
"On 12.09.2025 at about 10.45 p.m. the defacto
complainant was coming out of the bar after consuming
liquor and he saw the security person engaged in an
altercation with his father. When he tried to intervene he
was brutally attacked by using iron pipe causing grievous
injuries to him. Thus the accused has committed the above
mentioned offences"
2025:KER:82800
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
On 12.09.2025, at 8.45 p.m., the defacto complainant,
along with his father, came to the bar in Alankar Tourist Bungalow.
Both of them consumed considerable quantity of liquor. They were
in an inebriated stage. By 10.45 p.m. they were directed to leave
the bar as the closing time was 11 p.m. With some reluctance, the
defacto complainant and his father left the bar. The petitioner, who
is the security guard, closed the door. However, the defacto
complainant attempted to re-enter the compound for consuming
more liquor, which was prevented by the petitioner. Thereafter, the
other staff intervened and the defacto complainant left the place.
Four days after the incident, a false complaint was filed before the
Police.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no
incident as alleged had occurred on the premises of the bar and the
petitioner only prevented the defacto complainant and his father
2025:KER:82800
from forcefully entering into the premises of the bar after 11 p.m.
It is the case of the petitioner that the victim might have sustained
injury in some other incident. The specific case of the petitioner is
that he has not used any weapon as alleged.
7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
plea of the petitioner and submitted that the Case Diary reveals the
involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
falsity of the prosecution allegations is evident from the delay of
four days in the registration of the crime.
9. I have gone through the Case Diary. It is submitted that
the mens rea of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged
offences is doubtful. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
not required. The petitioner is prepared to co-operate with the
investigation.
10. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under
Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2
2025:KER:82800
SCC 565] held thus:
"31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed
accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering
the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the
object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by
having him arrested, a direction for the release of the
applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally
be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely,
considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking
advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee
from justice, such an order would not be made. But the
converse of these propositions is not necessarily true.
That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule
that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the
proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala
fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted
if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There
are several other considerations, too numerous to
enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with
the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The
nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the
context of the events likely to lead to the making of the
charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's
presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable
apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and
2025:KER:82800
"the larger interests of the public or the State" are some
of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind
while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The
relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State
v. Captain Jagjit Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 3 SCR
622 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 216] , which, though, was a case
under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the
present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount
consideration to remember that the freedom of the
individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as
it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person
seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the
presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to
restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions
which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration
of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on
bail."
11. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the Apex Court held thus:-
"113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be
restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the
accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that
case. The court must carefully examine the entire available
record and particularly the allegations which have been directly
2025:KER:82800
attributed to the accused and these allegations are
corroborated by other material and circumstances on record."
(In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1]) the
declaration of law in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre that no
condition can be imposed while granting order of anticipatory bail
alone was overruled).
12. In Sushila Aggarwal, the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court, following the decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, held
that while considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail)
the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the
person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation,
or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses),
likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc.
13. In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:
(a) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on 17.11.2025 between
10.00 AM and 11.00 AM for interrogation.
2025:KER:82800
(b) The Investigating Officer is directed to release
the petitioner on bail, in the event, he is arrested,
on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for
the like sum.
(c) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses
in this case or tamper with the evidence.
(d) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
investigation, including subjecting himself to
`deemed custody', as observed in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980)
2 SCC 565] and Sushila Aggarwal & Others v.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (AIR 2020 SC
831), for the purpose of discovery or identification,
if any.
Sd/-
K.BABU,
JUDGE
sp/03/11/2025
2025:KER:82800
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 12679/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE 13/09/2025 CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY DR. P.B. PRASAD, CIVIL SURGEON
ATTACHED TO KANAKAMMA BHARATHAN MEMORIAL
CLINICHARATHAN MEMORIAL CLINIC
Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRL.M.C.NO.2659 OF 2024 DATED 06.10.2025
PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.206 OF 2025
DATED 09.06.2025 OF THE MATTANCHERRY
POLICE STATION
