B.M.Jamal v. K.P.Sulaiman
Case brief
What is this about?
The court directed the trial court to allow petitioners to deposit bond amounts in lieu of sureties for bail and to dispense with their personal presence except when required for identity verification.
What did the court decide?
Direction to dispense with sureties and allow deposit of bond amounts; permission to dispense with personal presence supported by affidavit.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/4TH KARTHIKA, 1937
Crl.MC.No. 2822 of 2015 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 74/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PIRAVOM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
- B.M.JAMAL, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.LATE P.M.HAMEED, PATEL MANZIL, BEKAL P.O. HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
- M.M.SALIM, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED PILLAI, MANAYIL HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O. CHUNANGAMVELI, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN SRI.J.RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court below can be directed to dispense with sureties and allow deposit of bond amounts instead.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
B.M. Jamal
- petitioner
M.M. Salim
- respondent
K.P. Sulaiman
- respondent
State of Kerala
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court