Dismissed

Premkumar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2018Bail Appl./3587/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC regarding an assault case causing fractures. While noting the weapon was recovered, the serious injury prevented bail. The court directed immediate surrender and rejected the application, effectively dismissing it.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; directions issued to surrender before the court of jurisdiction.

Premkumar Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 3587 of 2018

¶5

CRIME NO. 656/2018 OF KARUNAAGAPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

¶7

PREMKUMAR, S/O.PODIYAN, AGED 29 YEARS, KOVOORACHATHUKIZHAKKETHARA HOUSE, THODIYOOR NORTH, THODIYOOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.P.K.SOYUZ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

IAP

¶14

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶15

B.A. No.3587 of 2018

¶16

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

2.The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.656 of 2018 of the Karunagappally Police Station, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 of the IPC.

¶20

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 3.5.2018 at 9.30 pm, the applicant herein owing to previous enmity followed the de facto complainant and assaulted him with a heavy brick causing a fracture.

¶21

4.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the allegations are without basis. According to the learned counsel, the applicant herein as well as the de facto complainant are neighbours and all that had occurred was a minor altercation. The fracture was sustained consequent to a fall is the submission. According to the learned counsel, it is evident from Annexure-A mahazer that the brick used for assaulting the applicant has been recovered. In that view of

¶22

B.A.No.3587 of 2018 2

¶23

the matter, the custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary is the submission.

¶24

5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer and he has made available the case diary.

¶25

6.Having gone through the materials on record, it appears that the de facto complainant was admitted in the hospital and it is evident that he has sustained multiple fractures on his facial bones. In that view of the matter, I am not persuaded to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the applicant. However, having regard to the fact that the weapon used for the commission of the offence has been recovered, I am of the view that directions can be issued to the applicant surrender before the court having jurisdiction. If an application for bail is preferred, the same shall be considered and orders shall be

¶26

passed on its merits on the same day itself.

¶27

This application will stand dismissed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶30

IAP //True Copy\ P.A to Judge

Premkumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premkumar v. the 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

K.P. Preejith Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Vinil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Shihab Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs the State of Kerala

Anil Kumar. D Vs State of Kerala