Allowed

Patric Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2012Crl.MC/381/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under S. 482 CrPC, the Court allowed the challenge against a CMP order granting default bail but enforcing a cash security condition. Ruling that the petitioner was effectively denied bail due to inability to pay, the Court quashed the security requirement while confirming the bail order otherwise.

What did the court decide?

The order impugned as far as it directs the petitioner to furnish cash security is set aside. The order is confirmed in all other respects.

Patric Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012/28TH MAGHA, 1933.

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 381 of 2012 ()

¶6

CMP.3136/2011 of C.J.M.,THALASSERY

¶7

(CRIME NO. 495/2011 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION)

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

¶9

PATRIC THOMAS

¶10

AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.P.M.THOMAS, RAJAGOPLAPURAM GUDALLOOR, NEELAGIRI DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.V.C.SARATH

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. N. SURESH.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶18

ON 17-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = CRL. M.C. 381 OF 2012

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶22

DATED THIS, THE 17^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner, who is the 4^th accused in Crime No. 495 of 2011 of Payyannoor Police Station for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Price Chits Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, assails Annexure A order in C.M.P. 3136 of 2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, whereby the petitioner was granted default bail. While granting default bail, petitioner was asked to furnish cash security of Rs. 1,00,000/- in addition to the execution of a bail bond for the said amount with two solvent sureties for the like sum. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not in a position to deposit that much amount and in effect he was denied bail by imposing such condition.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that there is merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the order impugned as far as it directs the petitioner to furnish cash security will stand set aside. In all other respects, the order is confirmed.

¶26

P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE)

¶27

knc/-

Patric Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patric Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ali Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Y.Raju Vs State of Kerala

P.Manikantan Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan @ Karate Vijayan Vs the State of Kerala

Jaseer K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sulaja Shibu Vs State of Kerala