Allowed

Eeswari Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2012Crl.MC/396/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.M.C. No. 396 of 2012: Petitioner, an accused in a criminal trial, challenged bail conditions imposed in her favor. The High Court modified the conditions, directing the return of deposited title deeds in exchange for certified copies and setting aside the condition requiring the accused not to dispute her identity during trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail conditions modified to require certified copies of title deeds instead of originals; condition not to dispute identity set aside.

Eeswari Babu 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

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/15TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 396 of 2012 (D)

¶6

CMP.NO.2608/2011 IN CC.543/2011 of J.M.F.C.-II, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ---------------------

¶8

EASWARI BABU W/O.BABU,AGED 20 YEARS,COIMBATORE SINGANALLOOR, COIMBATORE TOWN,TAMILNADU NOW RESIDING AT MAHE RAILWAY STATION. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN

¶9

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶13

ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

amk

¶17

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J

¶18

----------------------------

¶19

Crl.M.C.No. 396 OF 2012

¶20

-------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2012.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.543/2003 assails Annexure A2 order dated 17-8-2011 in C.M.P.No.2608/2011, whereby the bail was

¶23

granted imposing the following conditions :-

¶24

a. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each like sum.

¶25

b. The sureties shall be keralites and they shall produce original title teed of the properties.

¶26

c. Petitioner shall deposit Rs.25,000/- in cash.

¶27

d. Petitioner shall produce her own photograph so that she can be identified subsequently in case she absconded.

¶28

e. Petitioner shall furnish her full present address and she shall undertake that she will be represented by the counsel throughout the proceedings and she will not dispute her identity during trial.

¶29

Crl.M.C.No. 396 OF 2012 2

¶30

Having heard either side, I find that it would

¶31

be appropriate to return the title deed deposited by the sureties as per Clause : b of the above order after substituting the same with certified copy. As regards Clause : e, I find that the last part of the condition would prejudicially affect the defence of the petitioner and therefore unsustainable. As regard the other conditions, the learned counsel did not raise any argument and I do not find any reason to interfere with.

¶32

In the result, this petition is allowed in part and there would be a direction to the trial court to release the title deed deposited by the sureties after substituting it with the certified copies. As regards Clause : e, the last part that

¶33

Crl.M.C.No. 396 OF 2012 3

¶34

the petitioner would not dispute the identity during the trial would stand set aside. It is further clarified that in the event the petitioner seeks to defend the case in absentia, she would not be allowed to dispute the identity.

¶35

Sd/P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge

Eeswari Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eeswari Babu 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

C.Y.Sajeev Vs State of Kerala

Patric Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Patric Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Mohammedali Challyan Vs Rajappan

Sanub.P,M. Vs the Station House Officer

Rinil Rolence Vs the State of Kerala