IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 536 OF 2011() ------------------------------------- ST.728/2008 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------- SHABEER, S/O.MUHAMMED SALI, "PRIYADARSINI", MANKULAM, MUTTADA, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE ------------------------------------- STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011 ALONG WITH CRL. M.C. NO.537 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. Nos.536 & 537 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner, common in both cases is accused in S.T.Nos.728 and 727 of 2008, respectively of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was granted bail in both the cases but failed to appear on relevant dates. Thereon learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cancelled the bail and steps were initiated under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Later petitioner surrendered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereon learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Annexure-II, order recalled steps under Secs.82 and 83 of the Code and released petitioner on bail on condition that he shall deposit Rs.15,000/- in each case. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel contended that being a bailable offence learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not have imposed a condition for deposit of Rs.15,000/-. It is also contended that initiation of proceeding under Secs.82 and 83 of the Code is illegal. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. CRL.M.C. Nos.536 & 537 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. So far as the argument regarding steps under Secs.82 and 83 of the Code is concerned, it no more survives since learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as per Annexure-II, order recalled steps initiated under Secs.82 and 83 of the Code. Learned counsel contended that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not correct in directing depositing Rs.15,000/- as a condition for his release. Argument is that since the offence is bailable no such condition could be imposed. Under Section 436(2) of the Code it is within the power of the court to refuse bail even in the case of bailable offence once condition of the bail already granted is violated and bail bond is forfeited. If learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could refuse bail it was within his power to grant bail subject to condition as well. Then the question is whether there should be cash deposit. Having regard to the circumstances stated I consider it sufficient that petitioner executed bond for Rs.30,000/- (in each case) with two sureties each for the like each within three weeks from this day. CRL.M.C. Nos.536 & 537 of 2011 -: 3 :- Resultantly these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are allowed in part. Annexure-II, order in both the cases are modified to the extent that instead of cash deposit petitioner shall execute bond for Rs.30,000/- (in each case) with two sureties each for the like sum each within three weeks from this day. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv