IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 823 of 2010() ------------------------ CRMP.400/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... (CRIME NO.409/2009 OF KIDANGOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------------------------- JOMON, S/O.KUNJUNJU, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, VELLAMATTAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KIDANGOOR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.B.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.823 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the second accused in Crime No. 409/2009 of Kidangoor Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 393 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, was granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam under Annexure- I order dated 20.2.2010 on conditions. The third condition was that petitioner shall furnish cash security of Rs.25,000/- to ensure his presence before the Investigating Officer. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to delete that condition contending that in spite of the order dated 20.2.2010, petitioner is still in jail, as he is not capable of depositing the amount. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 823/10 2 3. If, to enlarge an accused on bail, he has to make cash deposit of Rs.25,000/-, only an affluent accused will be able to enjoy the bail. On the other hand, a person living below the poverty line has to languish in jail, even if he is entitled to statutory bail. In such circumstances, the direction to make cash deposit and that too to ensure the presence of the accused for investigation, who is to be enlarged on bail, is too harsh. It is not at all justifiable. The very fact that in spite of the order passed on 20.2.2010 petitioner is still in jail, establishes that it is because of his financial position, he could not enjoy the benefit of the bail granted under Annexure-I order. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. Condition No.3 in Annexure-I order is lifted. 16th March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv