ORDER : Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. These bail applications are filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’). 2. Petitioners in B.A.No.5814/2025 are accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 while petitioner in B.A.No.5819/2025 is the third accused in Crime No. 388/2025 of Kollengode Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that, accused had, on 15.04.2025, pursuant to a quarrel with the members of the temple committee assaulted the de facto complainant and others using an iron rod and other weapons and caused serious injuries, and thereby committed the offences alleged. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was submitted that though the incident is alleged to have occurred on 15.04.2025, the crime is seen to have registered only on 17.04.2025, which itself indicates the falsity of the allegations. The learned counsel further submitted that the third accused, who is the petitioner in B.A.No.5819/2025, is a serving personnel of the Indian Army, and therefore, he may even lose his job, if he is arrested, which is the intention of the de facto complainant, and therefore, the said petitioner also ought to be granted anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to Annexure-2 and 3, which, according to him, indicate the injuries sustained by the first petitioner, and submitted that, petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed upon them. 6. The learned Public Prosecutors, on the other hand, submitted that, the allegations are serious, and the recovery of weapons used in the offence is essential. It was pointed out that the roles of each of the accused are specifically mentioned in the FIR, and their overt acts clearly indicate the requirement of custodial interrogation of each of the accused. It was further submitted that the third accused cannot be subjected to any differential treatment merely because he is serving in the Indian Army. It was pointed out that the roles of each of the accused are specifically mentioned in the FIR, and their overt acts clearly indicate the requirement of custodial interrogation of each of the accused. It was further submitted that the third accused cannot be subjected to any differential treatment merely because he is serving in the Indian Army. Learned Public Prosecutor, also submitted that as far as the injuries mentioned in Annexures 2 and 3 are concerned, those documents are only casualty registration receipts and not wound certificates, and ought not be relied upon by this Court at this juncture. 7. On a consideration of the rival contentions and on a perusal of the FIR and other records produced, this Court is of the view that, custodial interrogation of the petitioners in B.A.No.5814/2025 is essential, especially since, the weapon of offence has to be recovered. Petitioners are alleged to have assaulted the de facto complainant and others using iron rods. Five persons had sustained injuries and therefore, custodial interrogation of the accused cannot be avoided. 8. In this context, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the third accused has to be considered. Since he is stated to be a serving personnel of the Indian Army, he may lose his job, if he is detained. Though the nature of overt act alleged against the third accused is serious, bearing in mind his nature of employment, I am of the view that, his custodial interrogation can be avoided, provided he surrenders before the Investigating Officer and subjects himself to interrogation on a date to be specified. 9. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2020) 5 SCC 1 , it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court. 10. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court. 10. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation. In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary. 11. In the result, B.A.No.5814/2025 is dismissed and the petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and subject themselves to custodial interrogation. As far as B.A.No.5819/2025, is concerned, considering the particular circumstances petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer and after interrogation, if he proposed to be arrested, then he shall be released on bail. 12. Accordingly, B.A.No.5814/2025 is dismissed, however, subject to the following conditions: (a) Petitioners 1, 2 and 5 shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 29.05.2025 and shall subject themselves to interrogation. (b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer arrests those petitioners, then, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional court without undue delay. (c). If after production of the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 before the jurisdictional court, any application for bail is filed, the court shall consider the same in accordance with law. 13. As far as B.A.No.5819/2025 is concerned, the application is allowed on the following conditions: (a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 04.06.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation. (b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer. (c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation. (d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. (e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail. (c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation. (d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. (e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail. (f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction. 14. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.