High Court Kerala High Court

Sunil vs State Of Kerala on 6 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sunil vs State Of Kerala on 6 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2963 of 2008()


1. SUNIL, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MADHU,S/O.VELAYUDHAN

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.C.DEVY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :06/08/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                  Crl.M.C. No. 2963 of 2008
            -------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008

                               ORDER

The petitioners, who face allegations, inter alia, under

the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act, have been directed

to be released on bail subject to conditions. They have been

directed to execute bonds for Rs.30,000/- each with two solvent

sureties. There is a further direction that, at least, one of such

sureties must produce solvency certificate for the said amount

or make cash deposit for the said amount. Other conditions

have also been imposed. The petitioners have come to this

Court claiming to be aggrieved by the condition that one of the

sureties must produce solvency certificate or in the alternative,

cash deposit must be made of the said amount. The learned

counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are now

in prison. They are unable to secure the solvency certificates

Crl.M.C. No. 2963 of 2008 -: 2 :-

immediately. Notwithstanding the order granting bail, they are

unable to take advantage of the same. The petitioner cannot

now secure such solvency certificates while they are in prison.

Imposition of the said condition causes great hardship and

inconvenience. Virtually the petitioners are denied their rights

to avail the benefit of the order granting bail by the said

condition. The said condition may be modified, it is prayed. The

bond amount may be increased if this Court so feels necessary.

But the rigid insistence on production of solvency certificate

which would unnecessarily delay the actual release of the

petitioners on bail may not be made, it is prayed.

2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The

learned Public Prosecutor only submits that appropriate

safeguards may be insisted. I am satisfied that there is merit in

the prayer of the petitioners.

3. In the result:

(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.

(b) The said condition is modified. The petitioners shall

execute bonds for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties

each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned

Magistrate. It is not necessary to insist that the sureties must

instil satisfaction in the mind of the learned Magistrate in any

Crl.M.C. No. 2963 of 2008 -: 3 :-

particular or rigid manner. They can try to induce the requisite

satisfaction by producing any such proper materials. The

learned Magistrate, needless to say, must consider such

materials and accept the sureties that they are found to be

accepted.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge