Disposed

Shyam Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Sept 2015Bail Appl./5210/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the High Court of Kerala refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a third accused involved in an arson case. Instead, the court directed surrender for interrogation within 15 days and permitted future bail applications to be decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to surrender for interrogation within 15 days; liberty to apply for regular bail on merits.

Shyam Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/20TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5210 of 2015 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 104/2015 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

¶8

SHYAM KUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O SASANKAN, KALLUVILA VEEDU, NEDUNGOLAM P.O., PARAVOOR, KOLLAM-691 334.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN

¶10

SRI.JOLLY GEORGE SRI.T.S.PRASANNAKUMAR SRI.K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN (ELOOR) SRI.K.V.PREMSANKAR SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶17

B.A No.5210 of 2015

¶18

Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2015.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.104/2015 of Mangalapuram Police Station registered for offence punishable under Section 436 r/w 34 I.P.C.

¶22

Prosecution case, in short, is that the defacto

¶23

complainant's car was set fire during the wee hours on 09-02-2015.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶25

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is totally innocent of all acquisitions. According to him, he is only a taxi driver. He is residing far away from the place of occurrence. He submitted that accused 1 and 2 hired the petitioner's taxi and they must have committed the aforementioned offence, for which the

¶27

petitioner is not responsible.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application contending that there are allegations about his involvement in the

¶29

B.A No.5210 of 2015 2

¶30

case diary materials. Considering the nature of allegations, the petition is disposed with following directions :

¶31

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within a period of 15 days from today and submit himself for interrogation. Thereafter, he shall be produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction on the same day. The petitioner is free to move for regular bail before the court below. In that event, the application shall be considered on merits as expeditiously as possible, if possible on the date of surrender itself.

¶32

Sd/- //True copy//

¶33

P.A to Judge

¶34

amk

Shyam Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil John Zacharias Vs State of Kerala

Rajeshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Nandakumara Prabhu Vs State of Kerala

Sajith Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

L.Sugunan Vs State of Kerala