High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 06 KL CK 0017

Anuraj Manoharan vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 June 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 2995 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 346 words

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

1.

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

The petitioner herein the 3rd accused in Crime No.16 of 2021 of the Kudiyanmala Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323,

324, 506(i), 294 (b) and 308, r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that on 23.1.2021 at 4.30 p.m.,the petitioner herein along with the rest of the accused formed themselves into an

unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object wrongfully restrained the informant and his associate and attacked them causing injuries.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1st accused was arrested and he was later enlarged on bail. He would further

contend that accused Nos.4 and 5 were granted an order of pre arrest bail by this Court.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor while vehemently opposing the prayer submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender involved in as many as 11

previous crimes. The details of the crimes in which the petitioner is involved is also made available

6.

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record.

7.

In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P and Another, the Apex Court has held that the antecedents of the accused is a relevant factor while considering

the application for bail. In the case on hand, investigation is still in the early stages. There are clear materials which point to the involvement of the

applicant herein. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the injuries inflicted are trivial. The mere fact that the co-indictee, who had no major

role, was granted bail is no reason to extend the same relief to the applicant. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the severity of

the injuries inflicted, the materials in support thereof, the role attributed, the antecedents and the likelihood of the applicant getting involved himself in

other crimes, I am not persuaded to release him at this stage.

This application is dismissed.