IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH MAY 2010 / 14TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1458 of 2010() ------------------------- CRIME NO.154 OF 2010 OF KALPAKANCHERI POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): 2ND & 3RD ACCUSED -------------------------------- 1. THITHEERUKUTTY, W/O.KUNHIRAYIN, CHAKKINGALTHODIKA HOUSE, PANG, PADINGATTUMURI, KURUVA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KUNHIRAYIN, S/O.KUNHAHAMMED, CHAKKINGALTHODIKA HOUSE, PANG, PADINGATTUMURI, KURUVA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPAKANCHERI, THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.M.FIROZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1458 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of May, 2010. ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.154 of 2010 of Kalpakancheri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. They were granted bail by Annexure-A, order dated 16.04.2010 on condition of executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties for the like amount. There is a further direction that they shall deposit Rs.25,000/- in the trial court. Grievance of the petitioners is against the said condition and the direction to report to the Investigating Officer on all Mondays. Learned counsel submits that deposit of security is not warranted and that being a private complaint, it was not necessary to impose a condition that petitioners should report before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Having regard to the nature of the offences and in the absence of compelling reasons I consider that it was not necessary to direct petitioners to deposit cash security since there is already a condition to execute bond for Rs.25,000/- each. Hence condition imposed on petitioners to deposit Rs.25,000/- is set aside. So far as the condition for appearance before Investigating Officer is concerned, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the court 2 below directing so. But I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioners to approach the court concerned for modification of that condition if circumstances warranted. Petition is partly allowed as above. Crl.M.A.No.2345 of 2010 will stand closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks