Partly allowed

Santhosh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Sept 2020Crl.MC/1860/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court, on bail application by Santosh Kumar convicted under U/A 143, 147, 148, 302 IPC and Explosive Substances Act, modified a Magistrate order by striking the cash security of Rs.50,000 and retaining the existing bond requirement.

What did the court decide?

Condition requiring cash security of Rs.50,000 in the Magistrate's order was modified by replacing it with execution of a bond for Rs.75,000 with two solvent sureties.

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1860 OF 2020(B)

¶6

CRMC 256/2014 DATED 07-02-2014 OF SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶7

CRMP 8046/2019 DATED 07-02-2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEYYATTINKARA

¶8

CRIME NO.1015/2013 OF Parassala Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 46 YEARS S/O SIVASANKARAN, NEDUMJAMTHALAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KAITHOTTUKONAM, PARASSALA

¶11

P.O.NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 502.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.S.NIKHIL SANKAR

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARASSALA POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 502.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR.PP.AMJAD ALI

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.M.C. No.1860 of 2020

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Dated this the 17^th day of September , 2020

¶22

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime

¶23

No.1015 of 2013 of Parasala Police Station registered for offences under Section 143, 147, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The petitioner was granted bail on 07.02.2014 as per Annexure A order. According to the petitioner, he has been strictly complying with the bail conditions. The final report in the crime is not submitted even after six years. In order to eke out a living, it became imperative for the petitioner to seek employment abroad. The petitioner submitted an application before the appropriate authority and thereafter filed Crl.M.P.No.3046 of 2019 before

¶24

the Magistrate Court for issuance of an order stating that the court was no objection in

¶25

¶26

Crl.M.C. No.1860 of 2020

¶27

issuing passport to the petitioner. By Annexure B order, the petition was allowed directing the Officer concerned to issue the passport and permit the petitioner to go abroad, subject to the conditions therein. The petitioner is aggrieved by condition No.(g) in Annexure B, requiring him to furnish cash security of Rs.50,000/-.

¶28

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶29

submits that, having directed to issue the

¶30

passport and having permitted the petitioner to go abroad for two years, the learned Magistrate should not have imposed the onerous condition of furnishing cash security of Rs.50,000/-.

¶31

3. I find substance in the contention. A perusal of Annexure B order reveals that stringent conditions, including the condition of executing bond for Rs.75,000/- with two solvent sureties, are imposed on the petitioner. That being the

¶32

¶33

Crl.M.C. No.1860 of 2020

¶34

case, it is not necessary to mulct him with the further condition of furnishing cash security of Rs.50,000/-.

¶35

In the result, condition No.(g) in Annexure B order is modified as follows:-

¶36

“The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.75,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.”

¶37

The Crl.M.C is allowed to that extent.

¶38

sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶39

Scl/24.09.2020

¶40

Crl.M.C. No.1860 of 2020

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE A COPY BAIL ORDER DATED 7.2.2014 OF COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CRL. MC NO.256/2014 ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2020 IN CRL.MP NO 8046/2019 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE 11, NEYYATTINKARA

Santhosh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Kumar 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

Anish, Vs State of Kerala

Shefeek Vs State of Kerala

Shefeek.S Vs State of Kerala

Vipin O. Vs State of Kerala

Godson George Vs State of Kerala

Jabir, Vs the State of Kerala