IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 256 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.121/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- SONY GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE PAUL, MANAKUNNATHU KALAPURACKAL VEEDU, RESIDING AT ROSE GARDEN, VADAKKAN MARADI KARA, (PALAKKATTU VEEDU, ARAMAN BHAGAM, KOZHIPPILLI KARA, VARAPETTI VILLAGE) BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.256 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. He has been enlarged on bail on condition that he executes a bond with sureties. The sureties had executed bonds. Their title deeds were deposited before court. The sureties now want their title deeds back. The petitioner applied for return of the title deeds of the sureties before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the impugned order, turned down that prayer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and the insistence that the title deeds of the sureties must be retained in court would cause great prejudice and hardship to the petitioner as the sureties would withdraw their suretyship and the petitioner will have to go back to custody. It is submitted that even after bail was granted, the petitioner had to remain in custody for a considerable period of time as he was not able to secure sureties who were willing to deposit their title deeds. In these circumstances, the impugned order may be set aside and the Crl.M.C.No.256/09 2 court below may be directed to return the title deeds to the sureties. 2. The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall deposit any reasonable amount as security. The sureties shall continue to be liable under the bond; but the title deeds may be returned to them. 3. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that the request of the petitioner can be accepted subject to the condition that the sureties shall continue to be liable under the bond notwithstanding the release of the documents to them and on the further condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as cash security before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4. This petition is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) Crl.M.C.No.256/09 3 jsr Crl.M.C.No.256/09 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008