Allowed

Hakeem Rahman, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jan 2020Crl.MC/636/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case arising under the NDPS Act, the High Court of Kerala allowed a challenge against a bail condition requiring the accused's parents or close relatives to act as sureties. The Court observed that insisting on relatives as sureties may cause hardship if they lack solvency or availability.

What did the court decide?

The condition requiring parents or close relatives as sureties was set aside. The accused is directed to produce two solvent persons as sureties for Rs. 50,000/- each.

Hakeem Rahman, 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

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.636 OF 2020(H)

¶6

CRIME NO.60/2019 OF PARALI EXCISE RANGE , Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

HAKEEM RAHMAN, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED RAFI, JALEEL HOUSE, KALLAYI POST, KOZHIKODE - 673 003.

¶9

BY ADVS. SHRI.SARATH M.S. SRI.VYSAKH VIJAYAN SMT.NIVEA LIZ PETER FERNANDEZ

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

2 EXCISE INSPECTOR, PARALI EXCISE RANGE, PARALI, PARALI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 612.

¶13

SRI AJITH MURALI-PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.01.2020, THE COURT ON 24.01.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.636/2020

¶16

¶17

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶18

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.636 of 2020

¶20

Dated this the 24^th day of January, 2020

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No.60/2019 of the Parali Excise Range under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶23

The prosecution case is that, on 12.08.2019, at about 18.30 hours, the Excise Inspector of Parali Excise Range found

¶24

the petitioner in possession of 1.200 kilograms of ganja at platform No.1 of the Parali Railway Station.

¶25

As per Annexure-1 order, the learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad granted bail to the petitioner on certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/-with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to

¶26

the satisfaction of the court and that the sureties shall be the

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.636/2020 3

¶28

parents and the close relatives of the petitioner.

¶29

This petition is filed by the accused challenging the

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner is estranged from his mother and that his mother does not have sufficient properties to stand as a surety for him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that

¶33

the petitioner has got no close relatives to stand as sureties for him.

¶34

It cannot be found 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

¶35

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. In some cases,

¶36

it may happen that the parents of an accused may not be

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.636/2020 4

¶38

available to stand as sureties for him.

¶39

In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the condition imposed in Annexure-A1 order that the sureties shall be the parents and 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.50,000/- each, before the court and satisfy the court of their identity as well as solvency.

¶40

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The condition in Annexure-A1 order that, the sureties of the petitioner shall be his parents and 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.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each. The learned Sessions Judge shall satisfy himself/herself of the sufficiency of such sureties and also their identity and solvency.

¶41

(sd/-)

¶42

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.636/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS, PALAKKAD IN CRL.MC NO.3042/2019 DATED 30/9/2019.

¶49

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶50

TRUE COPY

¶51

PS TO JUDGE

Hakeem Rahman, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakeem Rahman, 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

Thajudheen Vs State of Kerala

Aji Raj C.A. Vs State of Kerala

Renjith M.T Vs State of Kerala

Surendran.M Vs C.Mohanan

Sreekantan, Vs Valsala

Abdul Razack Vs Selvarajan