Dismissed

Sahad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2016Bail Appl./5335/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala denied pre-arrest bail to the accused, who was charged with causing grievous injury to an acquaintance by driving a vehicle. The Court held that interrogation was necessary to determine the nature and motive of the incident. The accused was directed to surrender for interrogation within seven days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days for interrogation before applying for regular bail to the JMFC.

Sahad Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/26TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5335 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 319/2016 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

SAHAD,

¶9

S/O. HYDROSS, AGED 38 YEARS, OZHINJAVALAPPU HOUSE, KALLUURADI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBHASH.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.

¶13

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAKKEL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA. T.Y.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.5335 of 2016

¶20

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶21

Dated this the 17^th August, 2016

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.319 of 2016 of the Bakkel Police Station registered under Sections 326, 307 and 294 (b) of the Indian Penal Code. He is the sole accused in the crime.

¶24

The victim of offence in this case is a relative of the petitioner. The prosecution case is that, at about 5.30 p.m on 10.6.2016, the petitioner herein hit the victim down with his car with the object of causing his death, and in the said incident, the victim sustained grievous injuries.

¶25

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the proper and effective

¶26

B.A No.5335 of 2016

¶27

¶28

investigation.

¶29

On a perusal of the case diary, including the wound certificate, I find that the complainant was admitted in the hospital on the date of incident itself as a case of road traffic accident, and on 18.6.2016, he gave first information statement to the police, stating the actual facts. The wound certificate in the name of the complainant shows that he had sustained fracture of both bones of his left leg. The F.I Statement shows that this is not in fact a case of road traffic accident. He is definite in the complaint that he was hit down by the petitioner with his car. No doubt, the accused had the full knowledge of consequence that when a person is hit down by a car in such a circumstance, it may cause serious injuries, and may even cause death. In the particular facts and circumstances, I feel it inappropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. He will have to surrender before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation. The petitioner would contend that if at all the allegations are true, it will come only under Section 338 I.P.C. I am not inclined to accept this contention at this

¶30

B.A No.5335 of 2016

¶31

¶32

stage. Voluntary infliction of injury is well made out by the complainant. The victim had sustained fracture of both bones of his left leg. In such a situation, the allegation must definitely come under Section 326 I.P.C. After necessary interrogation, appropriate decision on the request for regular bail can be taken by the learned Magistrate. Interrogation of the petitioner is felt necessary for the collection of some materials concerning the exact nature of the incident, the motive for the alleged incident, the exact place where the incident happened etc.

¶33

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

¶34

a. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating officer between 9 a.m and 10 a.m on any day within seven days from this date for interrogation.

¶35

b. After such interrogation, the Investigating Officer will produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction on the same day before 4 p.m.

¶36

B.A No.5335 of 2016

¶37

¶38

c. In case application for regular bail is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be judiciously considered and decided by the learned Magistrate on the same day .

¶39

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE

¶40

¶41

/True copy/

¶42

P.S to Judge

Sahad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahad 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

Arunkumar Vs State of Kerala

Martin Vs State of Kerala

Padmavathi Amma Vs State of Kerala

Anil Jain Vs State of Kerala

Chellamma Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs State of Kerala