IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 4068 of 2009() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/10/2009 IN CMP.3252/2009 IN CC.4/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. BRIJESH KUMAR K., S/O.V.K.BALAGANGADHARAN, KARIYATA HOUSE,KADANNAPPALLY, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. VIJAYANUNNI P., S/O. N.K.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, ERAMAM DESOM P.O., VIA PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. JEENESH P.K., S/O. P.V.RAJAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, VALIYANNUR P.O., VARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. SETHUMADHAVAN C., CHALAYIL HOUSE, S/O. SEKHARA PODUVAL, NEAR CHALERAPANI TEMPLE, P.O.ELAMBACHI, KASARAGOD-670 311. 5. MANOHARAN P.V., S/O. APPU, PUTHIYEDATH VEETTIL, CHELORE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4068 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C.4/2008. They were originally the accused in C.C.313/2005. As they were absconding the case as against them was split up and refiled. The other accused were tried and later acquitted. By Annexure-III order petitioners were granted bail by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur on conditions. This petition is filed to lift the condition directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.7,000/- each as security. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-III order shows that learned Magistrate directed the petitioners to make cash security for the reason that they were originally enlarged on bail but absconded later. 4. A cash deposit need not make any difference. What is to be assured is the presence of the petitioners at the time of trial. True, petitioners had earlier absconded, after releasing them on : 2: bail. When subsequently there was surrender and the learned Magistrate granted bail, sufficient condition to assure the presence of the petitioner at the time of trial is justifiable. For that purpose a cash security is not necessary. 5. Learned Magistrate is in such circumstances is directed to permit the petitioners, to withdraw the cash security, provided a bond is executed by a close relative of the petitioners undertaking to see that petitioners will appear before the court for trial as and when directed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE cms