IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2619 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.2683/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED 1 TO 3 -------------------------- 1. SANAFULLA, S/O. OEEYUSHA, AGED 30, RAILWAY PURAMBOKKU, SOORAMANGALAM, SELAM, TAMIL NADU. 2. NAZAR, S/O. RUBAHASSAN, -DO- 3. TOSANA @ DAGANA, S/O. AZAD, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2619 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 380 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner - three in number is that they, in furtherance of their common intention, had committed theft of gold ornaments from a jewellery where they had gone under the pretext of purchasing gold ornaments. Petitioners were arrested on 19/4/2008. They continue in custody from that date. They filed an application for bail before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, granted them bail subject to conditions. Inter alia the condition is imposed that the petitioners shall make a cash deposit of Rs.50,000/- each and shall execute bonds for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. 2. The petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the condition imposed that they must deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- each. Because of the onerous nature of the said condition, the petitioners who are poor are unable to avail the advantage of the Crl.M.C.No.2619/08 2 order granting them bail. Having granted them bail, the learned Magistrate should not have imposed a condition which is virtually impossible of performance by the petitioners. In these circumstances, a lenient view may be taken and the condition for deposit of Rs.50,000/- by each of the petitioners may be deleted, it is prayed. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, submits that the investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed and cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The learned Public Prosecutor concedes that against the petitioners there is no instance of criminal antecedents. The petitioners do not belong to the local area and in these circumstances there is a real apprehension that they may not be available for trial. They do not belong to Kerala and do allegedly hail from Tamil Nadu. Their correct permanent address has not been furnished to the learned Magistrate, it is submitted. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am certainly of the opinion that the imposition of the condition of cash deposit of Rs.50,000/- is not justified at all. I am satisfied, Crl.M.C.No.2619/08 3 in these circumstances, that condition No.1 can be modified and an additional condition can be imposed. 5. In the result, a) this Crl.M.C.is allowed in part. b) Condition No.i) in the impugned order is modified and it is directed that the petitioners shall execute bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. The petitioners must satisfy the learned Magistrate of their correct permanent address also. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the learned Magistrate must insist that the sureties offered are sufficient and solvent. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.2619/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.2619/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008