IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4005 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CC.4/2011 of I SPECIAL COURT- I, (SPE/CBI) , ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. JOSSY VARGHESE, 49 YEARS S/O.LATE T.J.VARGHESE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE KANNAVATTA, THENGANA PO, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SHEEBA JOSSY, 44 YEARS, W/O.JOSSY VARGHESE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KANNAVATTA, THENGANA PO, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THANKAMMA VARGHESE, 70 YEARS, W/O. T.J.VARGHESE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KANNAVATTA, THENGANA PO, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. JOGY VARGHESE, 39 YEARS S/O.T.J.VARGHESE, THOPPIL HOUSE,AZHANGADU PERUVANTHANAM, MUNDAKKAYAM,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. M.S.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.M.N.SREEDHARAN CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, R/O 2781-A FIRST FLOOR BASIL ARCADE, BEHIND PWD REST HOUSE VAIKKOM ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REPD. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRO.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, CBI, SC THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss CRMC. NO.4005/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A I:- COPY OF ORDER IN RC 9 (E) 2010/CBI/SCB/TVPM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4005 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 Order The petitioners are A1 to A4 and A7 in CC No.4 of 2011 on the file of Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Special Judge used to insist the accused to produce gazetted officers as sureties of the accused and so this Crl.M.C. is filed apprehending that if such a direction is issued by the learned Special Judge, it may not be possible for them to execute the bond as directed by that court. It is only an apprehension expressed by the petitioners. No order as such has been passed so far. The learned counsel submits that in similar matters the learned Special Judge has passed such an order. No doubt, the learned Judge must have been persuaded to pass such orders since ever so many complaints were there that the sureties had produced fake tax receipts. Here, if the petitioners produce two solvent sureties with recent basic tax receipts and the original title deeds in respect of the properties covered by the basic tax receipts, the same can be Crl.M.C.4005/2011 2 accepted to accept the solvency of the sureties. The original title deeds can be returned to the sureties on production of the authenticated photo copy of the title deeds. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.4005/2011 3