IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4089 of 2010() ------------------------------ (CRL.MC.NO.1278/2010 BY SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR) .................... PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER(S) -------------------------------------- 1. SANEESH, S/O.STEPHEN, AGED 22 YEARS, ANCHANAPPILLY HOUSE, NELLIKUNNU DESOM, NADATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. LINTO, S/O.ANTO, AGED 24 YEARS, PALLIPURATHUKARAN, PALAKUZHI DESOM, ANCHERY, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4089 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 29th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners, the accused in Crime No.557/2010 of Thrissur Town East Police Station registered for the offence under Section 399 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. They were granted bail on conditions under Annexure-1 order dated 29/7/2010. One of the conditions was that one of the sureties shall produce solvency certificate or make a cash deposit of Rs.25,000/-, for which the bond is to be executed. The petitioners filed Crl.M.P.3777/2010 to delete the said condition, contending that they are not in a position to deposit the amount or get a surety who could produce the solvency certificate. Crmc 4089/10 2 By Annexure-2 order learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to delete the condition directing one of the sureties to produce solvency certificate or to deposit Rs.25,000/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Sessions Judge by Annexure-1 order granted bail to the petitioners. But because of the stringent conditions petitioners are still in custody. The question is whether the bail granted with one hand is to be taken away by the other hand directing to comply with conditions which an accused cannot be fulfilled. If the petitioners were affluent persons, they would have deposited the amount Crmc 4089/10 3 and got released. From the very fact, in spite of the order dated 29/7/2010, petitioners are still in custody establishes that it is due to their financial condition they could not comply with the condition. In such circumstances, I do not find that it is in the interest of justice to deny the bail granted to the petitioners, by imposing such conditions which cannot be fulfilled by them. Result of such conditions would be that accused who are financially affluent could avail the benefit, while persons who cannot afford, has to be in custody. That is not in the interest of administration of criminal justice. Petition is allowed. The condition in Annexure-1 order directing one of the sureties to produce solvency certificate or make cash deposit for the bond amount is deleted, subject Crmc 4089/10 4 to the modification that one of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioners like parents, sibling or wife. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.