IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 1201 of 2009() 1. PRASANNAN, S/O.KUNJAPPAN, ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :28/04/2009 O R D E R S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.1201 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 28th April, 2009 ORDER
This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to
modify the conditions imposed by the Magistrate to enlarge the
petitioner on bail which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge,
dismissing the application of the petitioner for relaxation. Petitioner is
the 6th accused in Crime No.251/06 of Angamaly Police Station
registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307
read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. Pursuant to his arrest in
another criminal case, his arrest was recorded in the above case on
13.3.2007 and eversince he continues in detention, now in judicial
custody. The learned Magistrate before whom the case is pending
granted him statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the
noncompletion of the investigation within the time covered by that
section, imposing conditions of deposit of cash security amounting to
Rs.25,000/-, production of title deeds by the sureties and also
direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating office on
all Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays till the investigation is over.
The application moved by the petitioner for modifying those
conditions before the Sessions Judge was dismissed after taking note
Crl.M.C.No.1201/09 – 2 –
of the factual report submitted by the investigating officer indicating
that he is a hardened criminal involved in several crimes including a
murder case and he he had remained at large and was arrested only
after much efforts. Aggrieved by the conditions imposed by the
learned Magistrate and the refusal of the learned Sessions Judge to
modify such conditions, he has approached this court with the above
petition.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor. The application is opposed. His continuous detention for
the last two years is highlighted by the counsel to contend that he is
being deprived of an opportunity to defend him of the prosecution
and the conditions imposed for grant of bail, especially the order for
depositing cash security of Rs.25,000/-, are so onerous and
practically impossible for the petitioner to comply, who is stated to be
hailing from a poor family. A copy of the order passed in favour of the
coaccused in the same crime by this court modifying the condition to
deposit the cash security (Annexure C) is also relied by the counsel
for extending at least such indulgence in favour of the petitioner also.
Opposing the application, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that in the event of relaxation of conditions and release of the
Crl.M.C.No.1201/09 – 3 –
petitioner, he is likely to abscond from trial. The apex court time and
again has founded upon, the imposition of cash security as a
condition for enlargement of an accused on bail. A person accused of
an offence if in penury circumstances will not be meet a condition for
deposit of a substantial sum for his release on bail. The insistences
for deposit of cash security for release of an accused on bail is not a
must to secure his presence for trial as adequate other conditions
depending on the facts of the case will be sufficient for the purpose.
He is a hardened criminal involved several criminal cases including a
murder case as submitted by the Public Prosecutor and also the
apprehension that he may abscond if released on bail without
rigorous conditions, the objections raised to his release, of course,
deserve to be taken serious note of in modifying the conditions
imposed. Instead of the direction to deposit cash security of
Rs.25,000/-, the petitioner is directed to execute a bond for
Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum by each of
them to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Cass Magistrate II,
Aluva. Sureties of the petitioner shall produce either solvency
certificate issued by the competent revenue officials or title deeds of
immovable properties having value of that sum to prove their
Crl.M.C.No.1201/09 – 4 –
solvency. The petitioner shall report before the investigation officer at
his office till the completion of the investigation at a time between 9
AM – 11 AM on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays till completion of
investigation or for a period of six months from the date of his
release, whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction of Ernakulam District for a period of three months without
getting prior permission from the Judicial First Class Magistrate II,
Aluva. Petition is allowed as indicated above.
srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE