IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4118 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.1627/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. CHITHRA, W/O.MANIKANDAN, ADIVARAM, PALANI, TAMIL NADU. 2. MURUKAMMA, W/O.VARADARAJ, ADIVARAM, PALANI, TAMIL NADU. BY ADVS. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN, SRI.KISHORE.B. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. -------------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.4118 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010. O R D E R The petitioners who are accused in Crime No.524 of 2010 were granted bail by Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery on 08.09.2010. When the bail order was produced, Jail authorities did not release them on the ground that they are to be produced before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Hosdurg, as they are the accused in C.C.No.1627 of 2008. Petitioners then approached Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Hosdurg, by filing Annexure-1 petition through their counsel stating that they are not the real accused in that case and the accused in that case are different persons. By Annexure -II order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition finding that report of the Station House Officer reveals that petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1627 of 2008 and after they were released on bail, they absconded and they had given false addresses to the police in similar cases pending before various police stations. Learned Magistrate held that without producing necessary documents establishing their identity, the petition cannot be allowed. Annexure-II order is challenged in this Crl.M.C No.4118 OF 2010 2 petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitions were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that petitioners are not having any identity cards and they are natives of Tamilnadu and hence are not in a position to produce the necessary documents to prove their identity and second petitioner is eight months pregnant and, therefore, they are to be released. If second petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.1627 of 2008 and she is to be released on bail, she has to approach the learned Magistrate for bail and in this petition bail cannot be granted. 4. The question is whether petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1627 of 2008 who were released on bail earlier. In the light of the report of the police that petitioners are giving different addresses at different police stations, when they are involved in cases based on the difference in the address alone, case of the petitioners that they are not the accused in C.C.No.1627 of 2008 cannot be accepted. 5. It is in such circumstances, the learned Magistrates dismissed the application stating that petitioners have to produce Crl.M.C No.4118 OF 2010 3 necessary documents to prove their identity. Annexure -II order shows that the accused in CC.No.1627 of 2008 were released on bail. Hence necessarily there should be a bond executed by them. It is clear that those accused who were released executed the bond with sureties. The learned Magistrate could have directed the sureties to appear and verify whether petitioners are the accused who were released earlier on their surety. So also if the learned Magistrate can fix the identity of those accused by verifying the bond executed by them with the signatures or thumb impression of the petitioners. Since the learned Magistrate has not done so, Annesure II order is quashed. C.M.P.No.4394 of 2010 is remitted to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Hosdurg, to reconsider the same. The learned Magistrate to verify the bond executed earlier by the accused when they were released and also to conduct an enquiry on questioning the sureties and decide whether petitioners are the accused who were released earlier on bail. If they are the same, learned Magistrate can only dismiss the application. If the accused who were released earlier are not the petitioners, learned Magistrate shall necessarily intimate the Jail authorities Crl.M.C No.4118 OF 2010 4 that petitioners are not involved in C.C.1627 of 2008. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. mns