Allowed

Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2017Crl.MC/194/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala modified bail conditions for a petitioner accused of narcotics offences. It exempted sureties from producing solvency certificates, allowed alternative sureties if parents are deceased, and permitted the return of title deeds after perusal.

What did the court decide?

Condition No.1 modified to exempt sureties from producing solvency certificates; alternative sureties allowed if parents deceased; title deeds to be returned after perusal.

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/8TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 194 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 3535/2016 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 03-12-2016 CRIME NO. 5/2016 OF EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 32, S/O.RAJI, NADUMUGAM HOUSE, VALVAVANAPPETTU, THIRUPPATHUR, TAMIL NADU.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RANJITH

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 194 of 2017 () --------------------------

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2016 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3535 OF 2016 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

Crl. M. C. No. 194 of 2017

¶24

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2017

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioner herein stands arrayed as the 2^nd accused in Crime No.5/2016 of Excise Circle Office, Palakkad for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was granted bail by the court below inter alia on a condition that he shall execute the bond with 2 solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the court. It was also directed that one of the sureties shall be the parent, with landed properties. There was a further condition that in addition to production of the basic tax receipt, the sureties shall produce the original title deeds before the court below.

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner herein, who belongs to Tamil Nadu is that, he finds it extremely difficult to obtain sureties who can produce solvency certificates. It is also submitted that the parents of the petitioner are no more and hence the 2^nd condition can not also be complied with. Regarding the 3^rd condition, he has a further grievance that the direction implies that he has to retain the original documents in court.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to ascertain about the genuineness of the address furnished by the 2^nd

¶29

Crl. M. C. No. 194 of 2017 2

¶30

accused in court, since the petitioner belong to far away place in Tamil Nadu. The learned Public Prosecutor has now reported that, after enquiry by the Superintendent of Police through his counter part in Tamil Nadu, it has been confirmed that the address of the 2^nd petitioner shown herein is correct. It is also to be noted that, though bail was granted in December, till now the accused could not get released, which conforms that the condition imposed by the court below is onerous.

¶31

Having regard to these, I am inclined to modify the condition No.1 in the bail order by clarifying that the sureties need not produce the solvency certificate. It is also directed that if the parents of the petitioner are not alive proved by the Death Certificate, any other person can stand as surety. It is further directed that in modification of the direction No.4, the original title deed with its vernacular transcript in English, if the document is in Tamil, shall be produced and the original will be returned after perusal.

¶32

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶35

Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar 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

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Midhun P Vs State of Kerala

Rashid Vs State of Kerala

Shahabas Mohammed Vs the Senior Intelligence Officer

Mohammed Jabir Vs State of Kerala

Firoz Vs the State of Kerala