IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 406 of 2010()
1. RASHEED, S/O. POCKER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :11/02/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
---------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.406 OF 2010
----------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010
O R D E R
~~~~~~~
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, seeking a modification of the
condition imposed while granting bail to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.
381/2009 Nadapuram Police Station is alleged to have
committed offences punishable under Sections
143,147,148, 353 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive
Substance Act and 3(10 of Prevention of Destruction of
Public Property Act (PDPP Act). Petitioner claims that he
is falsely implicated. He had come home from the place of
employment on 1.10.2009 and the incident took place on
12.10.2009. He had no role to play in the incident and the
allegation against him is totally false.
Crl.M.C.No.406/2010 2
3. Whatever that be, the bail application was
entertained by the court below and by order dated
23.10.2009 bail was granted subject to the following
conditions:
“1. The learned Magistrate is directed to
release the petitioners on bail if they
furnishes bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two
solvent sureties for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court below.
2. Petitioners should surrender their
passport or file affidavit.
3. Petitioners should report before the
Investigating Officer as and when required by
the Investigating Officer in writing.
4. Petitioners should not enter into the
limits of Nadapuram Police Station Circle
Office without the previous permission of the
court, except for reporting before the
Investigating Officer.
5. Petitioners should not leave the
jurisdiction of Kozhikode District without the
previous permission of the court below.
6. Petitioner should not tamper with
evidence or interfere in the investigation of
the case.
Crl.M.C.No.406/2010 3
7. Petitioner should not involve in any
criminal case while on bail.”
4. Since the petitioner had to go back to the place
of employment, he moved the Sessions Court for
modification of the conditions. By the impugned order, the
learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. Aggrieved
by this, the petitioner comes up before this Court.
5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the reason given by the Sessions Judge in
dismissing the petition is unsustainable in law. There is no
justification in directing the surrender of the passport and
also observing that no documents have been produced
showing that he is employed abroad.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor was also heard.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court felt that there is no justification in directing
the surrender of passport of the petitioner and conditions can
Crl.M.C.No.406/2010 4
be imposed whereby his presence for trial can be ensured.
Petition is allowed as follows:
1)Condition Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7 in the order dated
23.10.2009 shall remain as such.
2)The petitioner shall give the address to which
communication shall be sent, to the court below
within two weeks from today.
3)The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper
with evidence or interfere in the investigation of the
case.
4)The petitioner shall leave Kozhikode District and the
State only with the previous sanction of the court
before which bond was executed.
(P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE)
ps