Allowed

Praveen Raj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2020Crl.MC/253/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a bail condition mandating that sureties must be the petitioner's parents or close relatives. The court held it is sufficient for the petitioner to produce any two solvent persons as sureties in the prescribed amount.

What did the court decide?

The condition that sureties must be parents or close relatives is set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to produce any two solvent persons.

Praveen Raj Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 26TH POUSHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.253 OF 2020(B)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 4213/2019 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

PRAVEEN RAJ AGED 31 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, KOTTIYALIL NIKARTH HOUSE, PANAVALLY, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.D.VIMAL DEV

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI C K PRASAD – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No.253 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶18

Crl.M.C No. 253 of 2020

¶19

Dated this the 16^th day of January,2020

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No. 75/2019 of the Palakkad Railway Police Station under Section 20(b) (ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶22

The prosecution case is that, on 19.09.2019, at about 16:05 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police, Palakkad Railway Police Station found the petitioner in possession of 8.460 Kilograms of ganja at platform No.3 of the Palakkad Junction Railway Station.

¶23

The petitioner was in judicial custody from 20.09.2019 onwards. Since the investigating officer did not file charge sheet within the statutory period, the learned Sessions Judge, as per Annexure-A1 order, granted statutory bail to him on conditions.

¶24

As per Annexure-A1 order, one of the conditions of bail, is

¶25

that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court and that the sureties must be the parents or close relatives of the petitioner.

¶26

Crl.MC.No.253 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

This petition is filed by the accused challenging the

¶29

condition in Annexure-A1 order that the sureties shall be his parents or close relatives.

¶30

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

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner has got property but he has stood as a surety in another case and therefore, he is not in a position to stand as a surety for the petitioner in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that none of the close relatives of the petitioner has got properties and therefore, they are not in a position to stand as sureties for the petitioner.

¶32

A perusal of Annexure-A1 order shows that the learned Sessions Judge had insisted such a condition to avoid production of stock sureties/paid sureties which is said to be prevalent in Palakkad. This Court is not persuaded to hold that insisting a condition that the parents or close relatives of the accused shall be his sureties, is illegal. However, imposing such a condition may sometimes cause hardship to the accused as the parents or the close relatives of the accused may not own property and they may not be able to prove their solvency before the court.

¶33

Crl.MC.No.253 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the condition imposed in Annexure-A1 order that the sureties shall be the parents or close relatives of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. It is only sufficient that the petitioner shall produce sureties, who are solvent to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- each, before the court and satisfy the court of their identity as well as solvency.

¶36

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The condition in Annexure-A1 order that, the sureties of the petitioner shall be his parents or close relatives, is set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to produce any two persons as sureties, who are solvent to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each. The learned Sessions Judge shall satisfy himself of the sufficiency of such sureties and also their identity and solvency.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶39

sms

¶40

Crl.MC.No.253 OF 2020

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE A1 THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DIVISION IN CRL.M.C NO.4213/2019 IN CRIME NO.75/2019 OF PALAKKAD RAILWAY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,DATED 29.11.2019

Praveen Raj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Raj 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

Nazeer Vs State of Kerala

S.Sreekumar Vs C.R.Ramachandran

Sanal Busher Vs State of Kerala

Paul Antony Vs M/S. Maniankot Advertising Company

Shakeer, Vs State of Kerala

Syamkumar, Vs State of Kerala