SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Ker) 198

High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Jomon, S/o. Kunjunju
Versus
State of Kerala
Crl.MC.No. 823 of 2010
Decided on : 16-03-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Sooraj T. Elenjickal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Petitioner, registered for the offence under S.393 read with S.34 of Indian Penal Code, was granted bail, by Additional Sessions Judge, under order on conditions - Third condition was that petitioner shall furnish cash security of Rs.25,000/-to ensure his presence before the Investigating Officer - Petition is filed under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to delete that condition contending that in spite of the order, petitioner is still in jail, as he is not capable of depositing the amount - Held, If, to enlarge an accused on bail, he has to make cash deposit of Rs.25,000/- only an affluent accused will be able to enjoy the bail - Person living below the poverty line has to languish in jail, even if he is entitled to statutory bail - Direction to make cash deposit and that too to ensure the presence of the accused for investigation, who is to be enlarged on bail, is too harsh - It is not at all justifiable - Petition Allowed

Judgment :

Petitioner, the second accused in Crime No. 409/2009 of Kidangoor Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 393 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, was granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam under Annexure- I order dated 20.2.2010 on conditions. The third condition was that petitioner shall furnish cash security of Rs.25,000/- to ensure his presence before the Investigating Officer. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to delete that condition contending that in spite of the order dated 20.2.2010, petitioner is still in jail, as he is not capable of depositing the amount.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

3. If, to enlarge an accused on bail, he has to make cash deposit of Rs.25,000/-, only an affluent accused will be able to enjoy the bail. On the other hand, a person living below the poverty line has to languish in jail, even if he is entitled to statutory bail. In such circumstances, the direction to make cash deposit and that too to ensure the presence of the accused for investigation, who is to be enlarged on bail, is too harsh. It is not at all justifiable. The very fact that in spite of the order passed on 20.2.2010 petitioner is still in jail, establishes that it is because of his financial position, he could not enjoy the benefit of the bail granted under Annexure-I order.

In such circumstances, petition is allowed.

Condition No.3 in Annexure-I order is lifted.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top