Dismissed

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jun 2016Bail Appl./3838/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC regarding alleged assault involving injuries. The court directed the applicant to surrender for interrogation due to serious injuries sustained by victims and found it inappropriate to grant pre-arrest bail given the nature of allegations.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. within seven days for interrogation.

Suresh Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/8TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3838 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 838/2016 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED 05-05-2016 CRIME NO. 422/2016 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

SURESH 46 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, VATAKKECHALIL, KOVOOR AMSOM, NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE (DIST)

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 31

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NALLALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REMA R.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.UBAID, J.

¶17

- - - - B.A.No. 3838 of 2016

¶18

- - - - Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail under

¶21

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No. 422 of 2016 of the Nallalam Police Station, Kozhikode District, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He is the second accused.

¶22

The prosecution case is that at about 2.00 p.m. on 15.4.2016, the petitioner and his co-accused trespassed into a toddy shop, assaulted the shop Manager and an employee, and inflicted injuries on their body with stone and stick.

¶23

This application for pre-arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely

¶24

B.A.No. 3838 of 2016

¶25

-2-

¶26

necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶27

On a perusal of the case diary including the

¶28

details regarding the injury sustained by the victims, I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation. This Court has already directed the first accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation as per the order dated 13.6.2016 in B.A.No. 3993 of 2016. The case diary shows that one of the victims had sustained severe injuries involving loosening of tooth, and the other had also sustained injury when beaten with a stick by the petitioner herein. The Investigating Officer will have to collect necessary materials concerning the petitioner by effective interrogation. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner had also sustained injuries in the alleged incident. He has produced the copy of the out-

¶29

B.A.No. 3838 of 2016

¶30

-3-

¶31

patient ticket obtained from the Medical College Hospital. This shows that he was assaulted by somebody at a different place at about 3.30 p.m.. That he had sustained fracture in another incident after 1 ½ years at a different place will not justify the injury sustained by the complainant in this case at a different place at 2.00 p.m.. Anyway, let the factual aspects be gone into by the learned Magistrate when application for regular bail comes. In the nature of the allegations, I feel it not appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶32

In the result, this application for bail is disposed of as follows:

¶33

a) The petitioner will surrender before the investigating officer between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on any day within seven days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.

¶34

b) After necessary interrogation, the investigating officer will produce the petitioner before

¶35

B.A.No. 3838 of 2016

¶36

-4-

¶37

the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by 4 pm. on the date of arrest itself.

¶38

c) In case application for regular bail is

¶39

filed by the petitioner, the same shall be judiciously

¶40

considered and decided on the same day.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Fazalu Rahman K.K Vs the State of Kerala

Prabhu Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Deepak Vs State of Kerala

Sujith Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed.C.a Vs State of Kerala

Suresh K. Vs State of Kerala