Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jomon Vs. State of Kerala

Jomon vs State of Kerala

Disposition Petition allowed Court Kerala Decided Mar 16, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/903311

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.M.C. No. 823 of 2010
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 393; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jomon

Advocate Sooraj T. Elenjickal, Adv.

Respondent

State of Kerala

Advocate I.V. Pramod, Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 393; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482
Reported In
2010(2)KLT371

Excerpt

- orderm. sasidharan nambiai, j.1. petitioner, the second accused in crime no. 409 of 2009 of kidangoor police station, registered for the offence under section 393 read with section 34 of indian penal code, was granted bail, by additional sessions judge, kottayam under annexure-i order dated 20.02.2010 on conditions. the third condition was that petitioner shall furnish cash security of rs. 25,000/- to ensure his presence before the investigating officer. this petition is filed under section 482 of code of criminal procedure to delete that condition contending that in spite of the order dated 20.2.2010, petitioner is still in jail, as he is not capable of depositing the amount.2. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor were heard.3. if, to enlarge an accused on bail, he has to make cash deposit of rs. 25.000/-(rupees twenty five thousand only), only an affluent accused will be able to enjoy the bail. on the other hand, a person living below the poverty line has to languish in jail, even if he is entitled to statutory bail. in such circumstances, the direction to make cash deposit and that too to ensure the presence of the accused for investigation, who is to be enlarged on bail, is too harsh. it is not at all justifiable. the very fact that in spite of the order passed on 20th february, 2010 petitioner is still in jail, establishes that it is because of his financial position, he could not enjoy the benefit of the bail granted under annexure-i order.in such circumstances, petition is allowed. condition no. 3 in annexure-i order is lifted.

Full Judgment

ORDER

M. Sasidharan Nambiai, J.

1. Petitioner, the second accused in Crime No. 409 of 2009 of Kidangoor Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 393 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, was granted bail, by Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam under Annexure-I order dated 20.02.2010 on conditions. The third condition was that petitioner shall furnish cash security of Rs. 25,000/- to ensure his presence before the Investigating Officer. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to delete that condition contending that in spite of the order dated 20.2.2010, petitioner is still in jail, as he is not capable of depositing the amount.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

3. If, to enlarge an accused on bail, he has to make cash deposit of Rs. 25.000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only), only an affluent accused will be able to enjoy the bail. On the other hand, a person living below the poverty line has to languish in jail, even if he is entitled to statutory bail. In such circumstances, the direction to make cash deposit and that too to ensure the presence of the accused for investigation, who is to be enlarged on bail, is too harsh. It is not at all justifiable. The very fact that in spite of the order passed on 20th February, 2010 petitioner is still in jail, establishes that it is because of his financial position, he could not enjoy the benefit of the bail granted under Annexure-I order.

In such circumstances, petition is allowed. Condition No. 3 in Annexure-I order is lifted.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial