IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3857 of 2009()
1. SATHEESH SHARMA, AGED 27 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :04/12/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 3857,3858 &3859
OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 4th day of December,2009
ORDER
Petitioner is the second accused in Crime
No.476/2008, 527/2007 and 926/2008 of Thiruvalla Police
Station registered for the offence under sections
457,461 and 380 read with section 34 of Indian Penal
Code. By Annexure A1 orders in respective petitions,
petitioner was granted bail on conditions. These
petitions are filed under sections 482 and 439(1)(b) of
Code of Criminal Procedure to quash modify the
conditions. Learned Magistrate directed the petitioner
to execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum providing that the
sureties shall be residents of State of Kerala and the
sureties shall produce solvency certificate. This
condition is sought to be lifted or modified.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Learned counsel submitted that when petitioner
is a resident of Rajasthan, it is not possible for the
petitioner to arrange a surety from Kerala and
Crl.M.C.3857,3858 & 3859 of 2009 2
therefore a condition that surety shall be from Kerala
would tantamount to denial of bail. Learned counsel also
argued that when the direction is to produce solvency
certificate, it is a too onerous condition as petitioner
cannot produce sureties with solvency certificate. It is
also argued that the direction to execute a bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- is also too excessive. Learned counsel
relied on the decision of this court in Valson v. State of
Kerala (1984 KLT 443) and argued that the conditions are
illegal and they are either to be quashed or modified.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that
petitioner is a resident of Rajasthan and subsequently he
shifted to Maharashtra and was involved in twenty one cases
in Karnataka State and three cases at Thiruvalla and two
cases at Kottayam and in such circumstances, learned
Magistrate imposed the said conditions to procure the
presence of the petitioner for the purpose of investigation
and trial and if petitioner is to be released without the
said conditions, he will not be available for investigation
or trial. It is also pointed out that three other co-
accused are yet to be arrested.
5. Though ordinarily while granting bail imposing a
condition that sureties shall produce solvency certificate
is uncalled for, in exceptional cases, it is justifiable.
This is one such exceptional case. Petitioner is a native Crl.M.C.3857,3858 & 3859 of 2009 3 of Rajasthan. He was subsequently shifted to Maharashtra
which according to learned counsel is for the purpose of
his business. Prosecution case is that petitioner
committed offences not only in Kerala but in Karnataka
State also. It is pointed out that twenty one cases are
registered in Karnataka State. Learned counsel submitted
that in all those cases petitioner was released on bail.
Petitioner is involved in three cases investigated by
Thiruvalla Police and two cases by Kottayam Police.
Petitioner was granted bail without such conditions by the
Magistrate in respect of the cases pending before the
Kottayam Police. If the petitioner is to be released
without sufficient conditions, for securing his presence
for the purpose of investigation and trial apprehension
expressed by the learned Public Prosecutor that he will not
be available for investigation appears to be genuine. It
is more so when the three co-accused are yet to be
apprehended. In such circumstances, the direction of the
learned Magistrate to produce solvency certificate by the
sureties is justifiable.
6. When petitioner is not a native of Kerala insist
for a surety, with solvency certificate, from Kerala may
tantamount to denial of bail. In such circumstance, the
said condition could be modified.
Petitions are disposed directing Judicial First Class
Crl.M.C.3857,3858 & 3859 of 2009 4
Magistrate, Thiruvalla to release the petitioner on
executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only)
with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Magistrate. It is made clear that the
sureties shall produce solvency certificates. Though
sureties need not necessarily be from Kerala, learned
Magistrate must assure that the solvency certificate
produced are genuine. It is also made clear that the
sureties could be common in all the cases and separate
sureties need not be insisted in each case. Though learned
counsel sought to modify the condition directing
petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer twice
in a week, I do not find that the said condition is to be
insisted for permanently. That condition would operate
only for three months from the date of his release and
thereafter petitioner need appear only as and when
required by the Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall
not induce or threaten any witness from disclosing facts
known to him to the police or court and shall not leave
Kerala State without previous permission of the Magistrate.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006