Allowed

Rajan M Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2014Crl.MC/2299/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition challenging a condition imposed by the Sessions Court requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000 as cash security for anticipatory bail. The court set aside the condition, holding that poverty should not be a ground for denying bail or imposing such financial conditions.

What did the court decide?

Condition no. 2 imposing a cash deposit of Rs. 25,000 is set aside; petition allowed.

Rajan M Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/30TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2299 of 2014

¶6

--------------------------CMP NO. 2238/2014 IN MC.NO.133/2014 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA

¶7

CRL.MP.NO.659/2014 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶8

CRIME NO. 97/2014 OF MELUKKAVU POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

RAJAN M. JOSEPH.,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.V.MATHEW, KAPPIYAMKAL HOUSE, MAMKOMPU, CHOVVOOR P.O., MOONNILAVU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 586.

¶11

BY ADVS.SMT.VILASINI NAYAK SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, MELUKAVU POLIFE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED:

¶15

R2. RANI, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.RAJAN M.JOSEPH, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHANPURACKAL HOUSE, KAMPIPPALAM, OLAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA PO, IDUKKI - 685 589.

¶16

**(ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/06/2014 IN CRL.M.A.NO.5402/2014)*

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Kss

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 2299 of 2014

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEXURE-A1.PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BAIL ORER IN CRL.MP. NO.659/2014 DATED 21/3/2014 IN CRIME NO.97/2014 BEFORE MELUKAVU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶24

ANNEXURE-A2.PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ORDER DATED 24/3/2014 BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA IN CMP NO.2238/2014 IN MC NO.133/2014.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶30

Crl.M.C. No. 2299 of 2014

¶31

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2014

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

This application is filed by the petitioner challenging condition no.2 imposed by the Sessions Court while granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.97/2014 of Melukavu Police Station, Kottayam District under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶34

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused in Crime No.97/2014 of Melukavu Police Station which was taken on file on the basis of the complaint given by the de facto complainant alleging offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner moved the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail by filing Crl.M.P. 659/2014 and the learned Sessions Judge allowed

¶35

the application as per Annexure I Order with conditions inter alia to deposit Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand

¶36

Crl.M.C. No. 2299/2014

¶37

-2-

¶38

only) cash security before the concerned Magistrate Court. That condition is being challenged by the petitioner now.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶40

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is a Government employee and he has to look after his parents. Further, he has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to the de facto complainant in an application filed by her under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. So, the condition of Rs.25,000/- cash deposit directed to be made by the petitioner by the Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail is harsh.

¶41

This application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶42

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused in Crime No.97/2014 of Melukavu Police Station which was registered on the basis of complaint given

¶43

Crl.M.C. No. 2299/2014

¶44

-3-

¶45

by the de facto complainant, the wife of the petitioner, alleging offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner moved the Sessions Court, Kottayam for anticipatory bail by filing Crl.M.P. 659/2014 and the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the application with conditions inter alia directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000/- before the concerned Magistrate Court. It is not known the purpose of deposit of Rs.25,000/- as cash security for granting anticipatory bail. There is no other condition imposed by the court below. Further, it is seen that investigation is already over and final report has been filed and it has been taken on file as C.C. 414/2014 and the petitioner is directed to appear before the court below on 30.06.2014. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has already taken bail on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted and the condition in respect of furnishing cash security was suspended by this court for a

¶46

Crl.M.C. No. 2299/2014

¶47

-4-

¶48

period of two months. Further, this Court has deprecated the practice of directing deposit of cash security as condition for granting bail as the poverty of a person should not be a ground for denying bail. So under the circumstances, the condition imposed by the court below viz., directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000/- as condition for getting anticipatory bail, is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. So, condition no.2 imposed by the court below is set aside and the petition is allowed accordingly.

¶49

Office is directed to communicate this Order to the concerned Court immediately.

¶50

Sd/K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶51

jjj

Rajan M Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan M Joseph 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

Nidhish Lal v. Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Manjusha.M.K. Vs Sreekumar.a.

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh P K Vs Sinimol K S

Kurian Vs S.I. of Police, Kanjar