IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4750 of 2010() ----------------------- CRIME NO. 1632/2009 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION ................. PETITIONER / 3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SUNIJA KUMARI, W/O. OMANAKUTTAN PAVUTHARA HOUSE, ENNAKKADU, MANNAR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT & STATE : --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE C.I. OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THODUPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4750 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 3rd December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the third accused in Crime No.1632/2009 of Thodupuzha Police station was granted bail by Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha under Annexure-A1 order on conditions. One of the conditions was that sureties shall produce solvency certificates and petitioner shall make a cash deposit of Rs.20,000/-. These conditions were challenged before this Court in Crl.M.C.2602/2010. By Annexure-A2 order, this Court quashed the condition to make a cash deposit and held that insistance for solvency certificate is justifiable. After filing of the final report, learned Sessions Judge by Crmc 4750/10 2 Annexure-A3 order, finding that petitioner is still in custody, modified the condition to produce solvency certificate by providing that sureties need produce only original title deeds which shall be kept in safe custody. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said conditions contending that in view of the said modified conditions petitioner cannot be released. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-A order granting bail was passed on 27/4/2010. Still the petitioner is in custody. Though by Annexure-A3 order dated 8/11/2010, condition providing production of solvency certificate was modified evidently, due to the financial condition of the Crmc 4750/10 3 petitioner he could not comply with that direction. In such circumstances, when the final report has already been submitted before the Court, what is to be assured is the presence of the petitioner for the purpose of trial. I do not find that it is in the interest of justice to insist for production of title deeds to be kept in court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that subsequently, case was committed to the Sessions Court in C.P.No.55/2010 by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thodupuzha. In such circumstances, it is not necessary to execute a bond before the Magistrate and it will be sufficient if the bond is executed before the concerned Sessions Court. If the Sessions Judge is satisfied with the solvency of the sureties, Sessions Judge shall not insist for production Crmc 4750/10 4 of the original title deed of the sureties to be kept in court. Petition is allowed. Sessions Judge is directed not to insist for production of the title deed of the sureties, to accept the bail bond to be executed by them. If the learned Sessions Judge is otherwise satisfied, he shall not insist for production of the title deeds by the sureties. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.