Kerala High Court
Rammesh Kumar @ Ramesh vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2014
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2014/26TH ASHADHA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 3977 of 2014
---------------------------
CRL.MP.NO. 1230/2014 OF SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM
CRIME NO. 340/2014 OF MANIMALA POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM
........
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1:
-----------------------------------------
RAMMESH KUMAR @ RAMESH,
S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, AGED 31 YEARS,
KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE,
PALLATHUPARA BHAGOM,
VELLOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SMT.M.M.JASMIN
SRI.R.SANJITH
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
----------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANIMALA POLICE STATION - 686 543.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYPASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
Crl.M.C.No.3977/2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEX.A1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.1230/2014 ON THE FILES
SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 28/05/2014.
ANNEX.A2: COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.340/2014 OF MANIMALA POLICE
STATION ALONG WITH STAEMENT OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
DATED 13/05/2014.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl. M.C. No.3977 of 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2014
O R D E R
This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, who is the first accused, in Crl.M.P.No.1230/2014 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kottayam, in Crime No.340/2014 of Manimala police station, challenging the condition imposed while granting bail under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called `the Code').
2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in Crime No.340/2014 of Manimala police station, alleging offences under Section 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested and remanded to custody. Thereafter he had filed Crl.M.P.1230/2014 before the Sessions Court for bail and the learned magistrate by Annexure-A1 order allowed the application with conditions Crl.M.C 3977/ 2014 2 inter-alia to deposit 50,000/- as cash deposit before the court below. That condition is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, on account of the imposition of condition, he is not able to enjoy the bail granted. The condition is such that is impossible to be complied and it will amount to denial of bail itself. So the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside that condition.
4. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the condition imposed is proper.
5. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner has been arrayed as first accused in Crime No.340/2014 of Manimala police station, alleging offences under Section 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Crl.M.C 3977/ 2014 3 This is also an admitted fact that, he was arrested and produced before the court in connection with the crime and remanded to custody. The petitioner filed Crl. M.P.No.1230/2014 for granting bail before the Sessions Court, Kottayam, and the learned Sessions Judge by Annexure-A1 order, allowed the application for bail with conditions inter-alia to deposit 50,000/- before the court below, that condition is being challenged by the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that this court has deprecated the practice of imposing a condition of cash deposit, as a condition for granting bail, as the poverty of the person should not be a ground for denial of the bail. If such a condition is imposed and the party is not able to deposit that amount, he could not able to enjoy the benefit of bail that has been granted to him. Further deposit of 50,000/- is not going to help the court to procure the presence of the accused as well, at the most, the court can later forfeit that amount and nothing more. So under the circumstances, Crl.M.C 3977/ 2014 4 there is no necessity to direct the petitioner to deposit 50,000/- as a condition for granting bail and this court feels that, the condition will have to be set aside as it will amount to a condition impossible to comply with by the petitioner and ultimately result in denial of benefit of the bail granted to the petitioner itself. So the petition is allowed and condition imposed by the court below, as directing the petitioner to deposit 50,000/- before the lower court is set aside. The petitioner need only execute the bond directed by the court below for getting bail. Hand over a copy of the order to the counsel for the petitioner, so as to produce the same before the same court. Communicate this order to the court below, immediately.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss