IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3960 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRMP.3856/2010 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA. CRIME NO.1632/2009 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------- SYAMKUMAR, S/O.SASIDHARAN, MADHAVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR GOVT.SCHOOL, KANJIRAMATTOM KARA, THODUPUZHA (VIA) NOW RESIDING AT THE HOUSE OF CHELLAPPAN PADINJAREVEETIL, PUTHUPPADY. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.LEELA R. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE C.I. OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THODUPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3960 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 28th September, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the second accused in Crime No.1632/2009 of Thodupuzha Police Station was released on bail by Annexure-A1 order dated 28/6/2010 on conditions. One of the conditions was that the petitioner shall make a cash security deposit of Rs.20,000/-. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the said direction due to his financial condition and consequential failure to make cash security deposit, he is even now in judicial custody and therefore, the said condition may be modified. Learned counsel submitted that there is also a further direction that Crmc 3960/10 2 the sureties shall produce solvency certificates and petitioner is not in a position to get sureties who can produce solvency certificates. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that considering the special circumstances of the case, learned Magistrate imposed the impugned conditions. 3. Very fact that the petitioner is still in judicial custody, even though bail was granted under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, on 28/6/2010 establishes that the petitioner had to be in judicial custody consequent to his failure to comply with the conditions. The second condition in Annexure-A1 order is a direction to make a cash security deposit of Rs.20,000/-. Imposing such a condition to an accused, who has no financial Crmc 3960/10 3 capacity to make the deposit, would tantamount to denial of the statutory bail. It would also result in denial of the rights of an accused, who is not financially sound when an accused who is having the financial capacity will be released on bail. Poverty is not a sin. In such circumstances, direction to deposit cash security of Rs.20,000/- is illegal and can only be quashed. Similarly, an accused who cannot get sureties with solvency certificate shall not be denied bail on that ground. What is to be assured is the presence of the accused for the purpose of investigation and trial. If that could be assured by other means, there is no necessity to insist for production of solvency certificate. Petition is allowed. First condition in Annexure-A1 is modified providing that it is Crmc 3960/10 4 not mandatory that sureties shall produce solvency certificates. The Magistrate need insist only that sureties shall be solvent sureties to his satisfaction. Second condition directing the petitioner to make a cash security deposit of Rs.20,000/- is deleted. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.