ARUN DHINAHARAN v. STATE OF KERALA
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2025-04-07. ARUN DHINAHARAN v. STATE OF KERALA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
B. A. No. 4454 of 2025 2025:KER:30051 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN TH MONDAY, THE 7 DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4454 OF 2025 CRIME NO. 1058/2013 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN BAIL APPL. NO. 3597 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED: ARUN DHINAHARAN AGED 37 YEARS C/O AMMBA A, 1707 LAKSHAM COLONY, MUNNAR IDUKKI, PIN - 685612 BY ADVS. VARGHESE SABU V. JOHN MANI SETHULAKSHMI K. K. RESPONDENT(S): 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADVS. A. A. SHIBI JOEL CHALAMANA ANJU ARAVIND BY ADV. PP – SRI. G SUDHEER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07. 04. 2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B. A. No. 4454 of 2025 2025:KER:30051 P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B. A. No.
4454 of 2025 -------------------------------th Dated this the 07 day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. This bail application is filed by the petitioner apprehending arrest in Crime No. 1058/2013 of Munnar Police Station, Idukki. 3. The petitioner earlier filed a bail application before this Court as B. A. No. 3597/2024. The same was dismissed by this Court as per Annexure-A4 order. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Annexure-A4 order: “19.
After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially on comprehending the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the prima facie materials that substantiate the petitioners' involvement in the crime, that the petitioners have suppressed material facts in the application and that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary B. A. No. 4454 of 2025 2025:KER:30051 and recovery is to be effected, I am not satisfied that the petitioners have made out any valid ground to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 438 of the Code. Hence, I hold that the application is meritless and is only to be dismissed. ” 4. The above order was passed by this Court on 16. 10. 2024. From that date onwards, the petitioner is absconding. Now, the second bail application is filed relying on Annexure-A3. Annexure-A3 is dated 02. 11. 2023.
That means it was in existence before Annexure-A4 order. There is absolutely no change of circumstances. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. Sd/- P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE DM
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.