IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 238 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRMP.140/2010 IN SC.558/2009 of PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S):SURETIES ------------------------------- 1. PADMAVATHY,PANICKASSERIL,FROM KADAVIL PANANGAT,KALLELIBHAGAM,THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. OMANAKUTTAN,S/O.VELUMBAN,PUTHENPURAYIL, THODIYOOR,VENGARA THEKKU,KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR,EXCISE RANGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY,THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.238 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are sureties of the accused in S.C.No.558 of 2009 of the court of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kollam. It is submitted that petitioners at the time of getting the accused released on bail had produced in the court below their original title deeds (sale deed No.1021 of 2009 and settlement deed No.732 of 1981, respectively) belonging to them and registered with the Addl. SRO. Petitioners filed Annexure-A, petition (C.M.P.No.140 of 2010) for release of the original documents claiming that the said documents are required to be produced in the Block Office in connection with a housing scheme. Learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge passed Annexure-B, order in the following lines” “settlement deed No.732/81 produced by the surety Omanakuttan is a certified copy. It is not the original as stated in this petition. Return the medical record”. 2. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel asserts that petitioners had produced in the court below original of the documents above mentioned. I have heard learned Public Crl.M.C.No.238 of 2011 -: 2 :- Prosecutor also. 3. In Annexure-A, petition there is no reference as to which all documents were produced at the time of getting the accused released on bail. Instead, it is only stated that original of the document was produced. In that view of the matter, I am unable to interfere with Annexure- B, order at this stage. But I make it clear that it is open to the petitioners to file fresh application before the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kollam stating which all documents in original were produced at the time of getting the accused released on bail and if any such application is filed, learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge shall check up from the back records whether any such original documents are produced by the petitioners and if so, return the originals after getting the same substituted with the certified copies at the instance of petitioners. This criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of with the above direction. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-