IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 59 of 2011() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 3108/08 IN CC.339/2008 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SHIMBY, S/O.SEKHAR, CHAITHRAM VEEDU, T.C.2/3068 (B), MANGANNOORKONAM, PATTOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMED ANZARI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.59 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner's Laptop was stolen from his house at a time when he was working at Techno Park, Thiruvananthapuram in the year, 2008. The Laptop was later recovered and produced in court. Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.3108 of 2008 in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram for interim custody of the Laptop. That application was allowed by order dated June 25,2008 subject to condition that petitioner executed bond for `.50,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each. Petitioner is aggrieved by the condition in that the amount of bond is excessive and since he is a native of Pune, he is unable to find sureties to execute the bond. Petitioner states that the Laptop is valued at only `.15,000/- and that he is prepared to deposit that amount in court. 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor who invited my attention to Section 445 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Section 445 of the Code I am inclined to think that it is sufficient that petitioner deposits the amount instead of executing bond as directed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Crl.M.C.No.59/2011 2 Magistrate. But I do not find reason to interfere with the amount of security since it has to be ensured that petitioner produces the Laptop in court at the time of trial. Resultantly this petition is allowed and Annexure-A, order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram on 25.06.2008 on C.M.P.No.3108 of 2008 in C.C.No.339 of 2008 is modified to the extent that instead of executing bond as directed, petitioner need deposit the sum of `.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) in the said court. Petitioner will also execute a bond (without sureties) undertaking to produce the Laptop in the same condition as and when required by the court below. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks