Allowed

Madhavan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Dec 2016Crl.MC/9063/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous case concerns bail conditions for an accused in a narcotics case. The High Court accepted the submission that conditions regarding sureties and property rights were onerous and modified them to allow notary-attested copies of title deeds.

What did the court decide?

Modified bail conditions by removing the requirement for sureties with landed property and permitting notary-attested copies of title deeds.

Madhavan Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/6TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 9063 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRMP 3535/2016 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO. 5/2016 OF PALAKKAD EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE , PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

MADHAVAN, AGED 30,S/O.SELVARAJ, KRISHNAGIRI MAVATTAM, SINGARAPPETTA, TAMIL NADU.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SAIJO HASSAN

¶10

SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, PALAKKAD.

¶14

R BY SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 9063 of 2016 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶20

ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P. NO.3535/2016 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 3-12-2016.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶22

TRUE COPY

¶23

P.A TO JUDGE

¶24

K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, J.

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.9063 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 27^th day of December, 2016 ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.5 of 2016 of Excise Circle Office, Palakkad. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that allegation is that the Excise Officials seized 6kg of ganja from the possession of the accused on 23.09.2016. Petitioner was granted default bail by the court below. But while granting bail, a condition was imposed as that “they shall produce sureties among whom one must be one of their parents with landed properties.” The submission made before me is that the said condition is practically denial of bail. It is also submitted before me that there is also a direction to produce the original title deeds before the court. Aggrieved by the imposition of said conditions, the petitioner approached this Court. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor. After hearing the Public Prosecutor and considering the submission, the following order passed.

¶28

'The petitioner shall produce solvent sureties and one of the sureties shall be hailing from State of Kerala and this

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.9063/2016

¶30

¶31

condition is imposed to get assurance of their prompt appearance before the court during the trial. The fourth condition that original title deeds are to be produced before the court is modified as notary attested translated copy (if the original is in any other language than in Malayalam) of the original title deed should be produced before the court along with original and the original can be returned on the condition to produce the same as and when required by the court below.

¶32

K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JUDGE.

¶33

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.9063/2016 3

Madhavan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhavan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Shyamkrishnan @ Unni Vs the State of Kerala

Paulson Poulose Vs State of Kerala

John M.Kuriakose @ Joji Vs State of Kerala

Usha Kumari Vs State of Kerala