IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 1900 / Crl.MC.No. 3084 of 2008() ------------------------- CRMP.5258/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- MR.SATHEESH @ SHIBU, S/O.SHANMUGHAN ACHARY, AGED 28 YEARS, PANAMOOTTIL VEEDU, AGASTHYACODU MURI, ANCHAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.R.SURESH (KATTAYAM) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 3108 OF 2008 CRMC NO. 3110 OF 2008 CRMC NO. 3111 OF 2008 CRMC NO. 3112 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.3084,3108,3110, 3111 & 3112 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has come to this court again complaining about the onerous nature of the conditions imposed on him by the learned JFMC-I, Punalur when he was enlarged on bail in five identical crimes registered at the Anchal, Yeroor and Kulathupuzha police stations. The offences alleged in all these crimes are inter alia under Section 379 I.P.C. The petitioner was arrested in the first crime on 25/1/2008. On the basis of his confession, the other crimes have been registered, it is submitted. The petitioner continues in custody from 25/1/2008. As per identical orders passed on 12/5/2008 , the petitioner was directed to be released on bail subject to conditions. Inter alia the following conditions were imposed: i) The petitioner must make a cash deposit of Rs.10,000/- in each case. ii) He must execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. iii) That one of the sureties must be a person related to the petitioner and that the petitioner as well as the sureties must Crl.M.C.No.3084/08 2 produce solvency certificates to prove their solvency. 2. The petitioner came to this court earlier complaining about the conditions imposed that the petitioner must make a cash deposit of Rs.10,000/- in each case. By common order dated 22/7/2008 in Crl.M.C.No.2687 and connected matters the said condition was deleted. The other conditions continue to remain in force. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conditions imposed are too onerous that it is impossible for the petitioner to comply with the same. The amount of bonds stipulated that is Rs.1,00,000/- is perversely high and not justified by the circumstances of the cases. It is further submitted that insistence that one of the sureties must be related to the petitioner virtually disentitles the petitioner for bail as the petitioner does not have any relative who is solvent to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and who can produce solvency certificate to prove his solvency. It is further submitted that the insistence that the petitioner as well as the sureties must produce solvency certificates is again unworkable as the petitioner in custody will not be able to produce solvency certificates to prove that he is solvent. Insistence on the condition that solvency certificates should be produced is also not justified in the circumstances of the cases. In these circumstances, it is prayed that all the three Crl.M.C.No.3084/08 3 surviving conditions referred above namely; that bond must be for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-; that one of the sureties must be a relative of the petitioner and that both the sureties and the petitioner must produce solvency certificates may be deleted. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor reports that there is no other case against the petitioner except the five cases involved in these petitions. The State has no objection in the conditions being relaxed; but appropriate safeguards may be taken, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am persuaded to agree that the conditions can be modified in part. The condition that the petitioner must execute bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties is found to be absolutely justified in the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner, I do take notice, is involved in as many as five crimes all relating to theft of vehicles. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded to agree that the condition that the petitioner must execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate in each case does not warrant interference. Crl.M.C.No.3084/08 4 5. I find merit in the contention that insistence on production of solvency certificates is not essential nor is the same justified. I am satisfied that the petitioner and the sureties can be given the option to place before the learned Magistrate any materials which can induce the requisite satisfaction in the mind of the learned Magistrate that the sureties are sufficient and solvent. It is not necessary to insist on any particular mode of documents to induce that satisfaction. The condition that the petitioner and the sureties must produce solvency certificates can in these circumstances be set aside with the rider that the learned Magistrate must scrupulously ensure that the sureties are sufficient and solvent. 6. The condition that one of the sureties must be a relative and that the said relative must be solvent will certainly work out prejudice and hardship to persons like the petitioner who claims to have no relative solvent to that extent. I am satisfied that in these circumstances the condition that one surety must be a relative can be deleted. It would appear from the nature of the order passed that the learned Magistrate insists that the accused must also be solvent to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. That insistence is not justified or necessary. It is sufficient if the sureties are shown to be sufficiently solvent. Crl.M.C.No.3084/08 5 7. These petitions are in these circumstances allowed to the above extent. The condition that the petitioner must execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate in each of these five cases is upheld. But the condition that one of the sureties must be a relative and that the petitioner and the sureties must produce solvency certificates is hereby deleted. 8. It is further directed that the petitioner need appear before the investigating officer at the Anchal police station between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and before the investigating officer at the Kulathupuzha on all Tuesdays between 10 a.m and 12 noon and the investigating officer at the Yeroor police station on all Wednesdays between 10 a.m and 12 noon as it will be impossible for him to comply with the directions regarding appearance made in the impugned orders. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3084/08 6 Crl.M.C.No.3084/08 7 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008