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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50989

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
RAMESH VELLANKULA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 779 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.VINAY VIJAY SHANKER
For the Respondents: SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ.N.R

Court modified bail conditions based on the petitioner's inability to secure sureties due to financial constraints.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the challenge against Ext.P6 order regarding bail conditions in a cybercrime case. The petitioner, charged under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the IT Act, seeks to relax bail conditions. The Court finds the petitioner unable to secure solvent sureties and reduces the bond amount to ₹3,00,000. The primary question considered is the ability of the petitioner to comply with the bail conditions. The Court concludes to modify the bond amount while ensuring compliance with surety requirements.

Table of Content
1. the petitioner's financial inability to arrange for bail sureties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. modification of bail conditions to accommodate the petitioner's situation. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Ext.P6 order is under challenge in this original petition.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2/2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Kottayam. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act , 2000. Bail was granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam imposing conditions among other things that the petitioner shall execute a bond for ₹10,00,000/- with two solvent sureties. The petitioner filed an application to relax the said condition. It was dismissed as per Ext.P6 order.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a delivery boy, a native of Andhra Pradesh and he is not in a position to secure solvent sureties. The learned counsel further submitted that nobody is prepared to stand as surety since the bond amount is ₹10,00,000/-.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition stating that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had misappropriated ₹1,64,00,141/-. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was granted bail as early as on 10.9.2025. But he could not be released so far. In these circumstances, the bond amount is reduced to ₹3,00,000/-. However, the petitioner shall offer solvent sureties.

The original petition is disposed of.

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top