Petitioners sought anticipatory bail for alleged involvement in trespass, manhandling, and damaging property. The High Court held the case was not fit for bail jurisdiction due to the serious nature of accusations and dismissed the application.
Petitioners directed to surrender and cooperate with investigation
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
B.A.No.4557 of 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 4557 OF 2021
(CRIME NO.224 OF 2021 OF PERUNAD POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
1 YADU MOHAN AGED 28 YEARS SON OF MOHANAN, PANICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOMBIKANDAM MURI , THOMBIKANDAM.P.O, EDAMURY, RANNI PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689676
2 JAYESH KUMAR AGED 25 YEARS SON OF SIVARAMAN NAIR, KALAYIL HOUSE, THOMBIKANDAM.P.O, EDAMURY, RANNI PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689676 3 SARATH KUMAR.P.S AGED 25 YEARS SON OF SASI.P.R, PUTHETHU HOUSE, NARANAMOOZHY, ATHIKKAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689711 BY ADV V.SETHUNATH
RESPONDENT
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PERUNAD POLICE STATION, RANNI-PERUNAD P.O PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689711
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU P.G
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.4557 of 2021
2
ORDER
Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.224 of 2021 of Perunadu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 341, 323, 324, 326, 427, 506 (1) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, these petitioners have moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Considering the nature of the accusations levelled against these petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case in which discretion of this court can be extended, exercising the jurisdiction under Sec.438 which is
B.A.No.4557 of 2021
3
supposed to be applied only sparingly and judicially in deserving cases .
Hence, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail as requested by
the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation of the case.
The bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V JUDGE
smm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present fitness for the exercise of pre-arrest bail jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC considering the grave nature of allegations.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Yadu Mohan and others
State of Kerala
Shircy V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
