IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1678 of 2011() ------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 540/2011 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------- 1. PRAMALAL NAIK, S/O.KASIPUR GOVIND NAIK,ORISSA STATE, RAIGAD DISTRICT, DANKSH HAR VILLAGE, CHANDRAGIRI POST, KASIPUR. 2. BABU NAIK, S/O.KISHOR NAIK, BIRLA PASS VILLAGE, KASHIPOOR BLOCK, ORISSA STATE. 3. UGRA NAIK, S/O.BINGKU NAIK,ORISSA STATE, RAIGAD DISTRICT, BIRLAPASS VILLAGE, KASIPUR BLOCK. 4. LALITH GOUD, S/O.KARTHIK GOUD,ORISSA STATE, RAIGAD DISTRICT, BIRLAPASS VILLAGE, KASIPUR BLOCK. 5. RASIKA NAIK, S/O.GURU NAIK,ORISSA STATE, RAIGAD DISTRICT, BIRLAPASS VILLAGE, KASIPUR BLOCK. 6. PRAKASH NAIK, DARDHAR NAIK,ORISSA STATE, RAIGAD DISTRICT, BIRLAPASS VILLAGE, KASIPUR BLOCK. 7. RAJU NAIK, S/O.ESWAR NAIK, BANGLA PASS VILLAGE, CHANDRAGIRI BHAGAM,DANKSHHAR,RAYAGADA,ORISSA STATE. BY ADV. SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1678 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 09th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in Crime No.540 of 2011 Thodupuzha Police Station for offence punishable under Section 385 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 118(D) and 120(P) of the Kerala Police Act, the allegation being that on 15.03.2011 at about 3.45 p.m petitioners threatened and demanded over phone the Deputy Speaker of the Orissa Assembly to pay `2,00,000/- and directed him to deposit the said amount in the account of the Indian Bank at Thodupuzha. Learned Magistrate granted bail to the petitioners as per Annexure-A4, order imposing conditions and accordingly petitioners wanted to execute bond and produce sureties. Learned Magistrate by Annexure-A5, order rejected the same. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel submitted that though petitioners have not offered sureties from the State of Kerala since they hail from the State of Orissa, sureties have produced documents including land tax receipts showing right over the property offered as security. But learned Magistrate was not satisfied. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. CRL.M.C. No.1678 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. It is seen from Annexure-A5, order that learned Magistrate has not stated sufficient reasons why he was not satisfied about the documents. If the documents are in Oriya and its English version is duly attested by a Notary Public learned Magistrate has to consider acceptability of the said documents. It may not be possible for petitioners to get sureties from the State of Kerala since they belong to the State of Orissa. Hence I am inclined to think that the matter requires reconsideration by the learned Magistrate having regard to the above circumstances. I also bear in mind that learned Magistrate imposed conditions while granting bail that they shall appear before the Investigating Officer every day until final report is filed and that they shall not leave the local limits of the police station apart from directing that they shall surrender their passports and file affidavits in case they have no passports. These conditions may be sufficient to ensure presence of petitioners. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-A5, order dated May 28, 2011 (in Crime No.540 of 2001 of Thodupzuha Police Station) of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thodupuzha is set aside. The CRL.M.C. No.1678 of 2011 -: 3 :- matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above and all relevant facts and circumstances. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv