Santhosh Kumar @ Santhosh vs The State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2833 of 2009()


1. SANTHOSH KUMAR @ SANTHOSH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :09/09/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
            ===========================
            CRL.M.C.No.2833       OF 2009
            ===========================

    Dated this the 9th day of September,2009

                        ORDER

Third accused in Crime No.1164/2006 of

Kottarakkara Police Station, registered for the

offences under section 104, 324,326,307, 394 read with

section 34 of Indian Penal Code was granted bail by

Sessions Court, Kollam under Annexure A1 order on

conditions. One of the conditions was a direction to

surrender the passport before executing the bond for

Rs.20,000/-. As petitioner was not holding a passport,

he filed Crl.M.P.2167/2009, to delete the condition to

release the passport. Under Annexure A2 order, learned

Sessions Judge deleted the condition but modified the

other condition to the effect that the sureties shall

produce solvency certificate. This petition is filed

challenging the said condition contending that

petitioner cannot get any surety who can produce the

solvency certificate.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

Crl.M.C. 2833/2009 2

pointed out that eventhough petitioner was granted bail as

early as on 24.7.2009, because of his inability to arrange

sureties with solvency certificate he is confined in the

jail and in such circumstance learned Sessions Judge was

not justified in directing that the sureties shall produce

solvency certificate.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted

that final report has already been submitted.

5. In such circumstance, I find it not necessary to

insist for production of the solvency certificate by the

sureties. Instead it would be sufficient if it is provided

that at least one of the sureties should be the close

relative of the petitioner like his parents, brother or

sister. Condition is modified to that extent.

Petition is disposed accordingly.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006