IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2709 of 2007()
1. B.M. UMMER BEARY, AGED 26 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.MADHU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :05/09/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2709 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of September 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner faces allegations under Section 302 I.P.C.
He was arrested on 29/12/2006. He continues in custody from
that date.
2. As the final report was not submitted within the
stipulated period, the petitioner was granted bail by default as
per order dated 16/4/2007 subject to the following conditions:
“i) He shall execute the with two solvent sureties with
solvency certificate of Rs.1,00,000/- each.
ii) He shall appear before the investigation officer twice
in a week i.e. in every Monday and Friday in between 10 a.m and
11 a.m until further orders.
iii) He shall not commit any offence when he is on bail.
iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without
obtaining permission from the court.”
3. Though a period of about five months has elapsed
from the date of order granting bail, the petitioner has not been
able to take advantage of the order granting bail to him
Crl.M.C.No.2709/07 2
inasmuch as he has not been able to secure two sureties with
solvency certificate of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner, therefore, is
compelled to languish in judicial custody even now. He was
arrested on 29/12/2006 and bail was ordered to be granted to
him on 16/4/2007. In spite of that, the petitioner continues in
custody even now.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the first condition that the petitioner must produce two sureties
who have solvency certificates to show that they are solvent to
the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- is the condition which makes it
impossible for the petitioner to avail of the benefit of the order
granting bail. The petitioner therefore moved the learned
Magistrate for modification of the said condition. The learned
Magistrate, by Annexure A1 order, rejected the said petition.
The petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge. But the
learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order (produced as
Annexure A3) also turned down the challenge.
5. The petitioner has, in these circumstances, come to
this court with the prayer that the said onerous condition may be
deleted and the petitioner may be directed to be released on bail
if he produces solvent sureties without insisting on production of
Crl.M.C.No.2709/07 3
solvency certificates. If such condition were permitted to
remain, the petitioner will languish in custody until the trial is
over. The sessions case has not been numbered even yet, it is
submitted.
6. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am
certainly of the opinion that the insistence on production of
solvency certificates by the sureties can be dispensed with. It
can be directed that the sureties can produce any document or
material to show that they are sufficient and solvent. It is not
necessary to rigidly and ritualistically insist on production of the
solvency certificates by the sureties.
7. This petition is accordingly allowed. The said
condition – that the sureties must produce solvency certificates
of Rs.1,00,000/- each is modified. It is directed that the sureties
can produce any documents or materials to instill the requisite
satisfaction in the mind of the learned Magistrate. Needless to
say, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the
learned Magistrate must scrupulously insist that the sureties
offered are sufficient and solvent.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
Crl.M.C.No.2709/07 4
Crl.M.C.No.2709/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007