IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3688 of 2010(C) -------------------------------- (CMP.619/2010 IN CRIME NO.115/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA.) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- LEELDHER, S/O.LAKSHMIDAS, ROOM NO.303, 3RD FLOOR, JANAKAMANTHRA BUILDING, JAI HIND COLONY, GUPTHA ROAD, DOMBIVALI WEST, THANA, MAHARASHTRA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CRIME BRANCH CID, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING-II, KOTTAYAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, ALONGWITH CRL.MC.3825/2010 & CRL.MC. 3738/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.3688, 3738 & 3825 of 2010 -------------------------------------- COMMON ORDER Petitioner, the accused in Crime No.115/2010 of Piravom Police Station, Crime No.117/2010 of Kuravilangad Police Station and Crime No.647/2009 of Piravom Police Station, filed these petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to modify the condition in the order granting bail and to release the petitioner on executing a bond by his son, who is having a Pan Card and to permit him to go to his native place with a condition to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that petitioner is absolutely innocent and though bail was granted, because of the stringent conditions, petitioner is still in CRMC 3688/10 & con. cases 2 custody for the last more than six months and in such circumstances, the conditions are to be modified. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that petitioner had earlier produced a surety and his tax receipts and learned Magistrate found that the tax receipts were fake and in such circumstances, petitioner cannot be released on a bond executed by his son. 5. By Annexure-A2 order Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha granted bail to the petitioner in Crime No.115/2010 on the following conditions: 1. The accused shall execute bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. 2. The accused shall not leave the limits of Piravom Police Station without the permission of the court. By Annexure-A2 order Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pala granted bail in Crime No.117/2010 on the following conditions: CRMC 3688/10 & con. cases 3 1. Accused shall execute bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. 2. Sureties shall produce their original title deeds for verification and those can be returned after verification. 3. Accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. until further orders. 6. Learned Magistrate granted bail on conditions. Considering the nature of the case, the condition to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum cannot be said to be illegal. So also, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha did not impose a condition that sureties shall produce solvency certificate or even their title deeds. The only condition provided is that sureties shall be solvent. That is perfectly legal. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pala provided that sureties shall produce their title deeds which can be returned after perusal, evidently, for satisfying himself that they are solvent. It is also legal. CRMC 3688/10 & con. cases 4 7. Magistrate need not insist for production of the title deeds to satisfy that sureties are solvent, if he is satisfied that sureties are solvent by any other means. When the investigation is at the initial stage, direction of the learned Magistrate not to leave the limits of Piravom Police Station without the permission of the court is also justifiable, as petitioner is a resident of Maharashtra and once he leaves the jurisdiction, it may not be possible to procure his presence. In such circumstances, no direction is warranted. Petitions are dismissed. Investigating Officer is directed to expedite the investigation. 16th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv