Nebil Nazar & Anr. vs State Of Kerala

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.

The applicants are the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No.654/2026 of Kilikolloor Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b), 351(2), 115(2), 117(2), 74, 304(2) and 324(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS).

The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused persons, infuriated by the de facto complainant demanding ₹750/-towards the charge for the food and beverages supplied, on 03.07.2026 at 7.30 p.m., in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt, intimidated the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant again demanded the money over phone at 8.41 p.m., the accused No. 1 again criminally intimidated her, and at 8.50 p.m., when the demand was reiterated, the accused No. 1 called out obscene words. The applicant No.1, in furtherance of the common intention, fisted on the defacto complainant's nose in such a manner that the defacto complainant suffered fracture to the nasal septum. The applicant No.2 fisted on the defacto complainant's right ear and the accused No.1 grabbed her hair and her churidar was torn is such a way that her modesty was outraged. When a neighbour recorded the incident in his mobile phone, the mobile phone was grabbed causing a loss of ₹85,000/-and thereby the applicants have committed the offences.

I have heard Sri. Sanal C.S., the learned counsel for the applicants and Smt. Aneeda Beegum, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

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.

A reading of the FIS would show that specific overt act has been attributed against the applicants. The applicants assaulted the defacto complainant causing fracture to her nose. However, no weapon was used by the applicants. The only non bailable offence involved is under Section 74 of the BNS. The allegation regarding the said offence is only against the accused No.1. There is absolutely no allegation against the applicants that they outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant. 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:-