IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4093 of 2008() --------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.831/2008 OF THE KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. T.RASHEED, S/O.SUBAIR, AGED 23 YEARS, 'JAMEELAS', KANNUR AMSOM, ANDATHODE. 2. P.K.ARIF, S/O.JABBAR, AGED 20 YEARS, PALLIKKANDI HOUSE, AZAD ROAD, KANNUR CITY. 3. P.ISHAM, S/O.HASHIM, AGED 21 YEARS, PULLONDAN HOUSE, KANNUR AMSOM. 4. P.M.MUHAD, S/O.UMMER, AGED 19 YEARS, PUNNAMBATH MEETHAL HOUSE, KOHINUR QUARTERS, THAZHE CHOWA. 5. K.MUBASHEER, S/O.HAMEED, AGED 18 YEARS, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, 'KHADEEJAS', EDAKKAD AMSOM, KADALAYI. 6. P.C.MUHAZ, S/O.MAJEED, AGED 21 YEARS, QUARATHECHAL HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM, MANAL. Kss ..2/- ...2..... CRL.M.C.NO.4093/2008 7. C.V. RUHAIB, S/O.MUTHULIB, AGED 18 YEARS, BAITHUL THOUFEEQUE, EDAKKAD AMSOM. 8. A.ROUF, S/O.HAMEED, AGED 18 YEARS, ARAKKAL HOUSE, ALHAIL QUARTERS, KANNUR AMSOM, VAITHILAPPALLI. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THORUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4093 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused in a crime registered , inter alia, under Section 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act and Section 506 (ii) r/w. 149 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate granted the petitioners bail subject to conditions. The petitioners are aggrieved by one condition imposed and the said condition is that the accused shall execute bonds for Rs.8,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum. It was further directed that one of such sureties must be either relatives or parents of the accused. 2. The petitioners submit that the parents/relatives are not solvent to the tune of Rs.8,000/- and are not able to show solvency by production of documents. Hence they are unable to take advantage of the order granting them bail, which was passed as early as on 16.10.2008. Hence they are unnecessarily languishing in custody, it is submitted. The impugned order shows that the petitioners are all young persons of the age group Crl.M.C.No. 4093 of 2008 2 18 – 23 years. The learned Magistrate appears to have been concerned about the well being of such young persons and he evidently wanted the parents/relatives to take up the responsibilities and know about the alleged mis-deeds of the petitioners. I am unable to find anything wrong in the imposition of condition No.1 by the learned Magistrate. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the very fact that the petitioners have been languishing in custody from 16.10.08 till this day must convince this court that it is really a case of inability of the petitioners to offer such sureties (parents/relatives) as demanded. I am in these circumstances satisfied that condition No.1 imposed can be modified subject to appropriate safeguards. 4. This Crl.M.C. is allowed in part. Condition No.1 imposed on the petitioners when they were granted bail as per the impugned order is modified. In supersession of the said condition, the following condition is imposed. i) The accused shall execute bonds for Rs.8,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Crl.M.C.No. 4093 of 2008 3 Magistrate. Atleast one of such sureties shall be a parent or relative of the accused. ii) If the accused persons are unable to get relatives/parents, who are adequately solvent, the learned Magistrate shall insist that such an accused executes a bond for Rs.8,000/- with three sureties of which atleast one shall be a parent or relative. iii) In such event, it need only be insisted that the other two sureties are sufficient and solvent. The relative/parent surety can then be accepted as surety without insisting on production of proof regarding solvency. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm