Responsive image

Prasannan vs State Of Kerala on 28 April, 2009

Kerala High Court
Prasannan vs State Of Kerala on 28 April, 2009




Crl.MC.No. 1201 of 2009()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


 Dated :28/04/2009

 O R D E R
                   S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        Crl.M.C.No.1201 of 2009
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         Dated: 28th April, 2009


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


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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information