Ajith Kumar Agrawala v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/26TH PHALGUNA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1331 of 2015 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 728/2014 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------ AJITH KUMAR AGRAWALA AGED 36 YEARS S/O. MANOHAR AGRAWALA RAMCHANDPUR BAZAR, JADNI PO KURDHA DISTRICT, ODISHA BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE. P THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1331 of 2015 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP. NO.12 /2015 IN SC 96/2014 OF SPECIAL JUDGE (FOR NDPS ACT CASES) VADAKARA RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE sab
P.UBAID, J.
------------------------- Crl. M.C No.1331 of 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2015.
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C No. 96 of 2014 before the Special Court (NDPS Act Cases), Vadakara. He is a native of Kurdha District in the State of Odisha. The allegation against him is that he was found possessing nearly 1.5 kg of Ganja. He was granted bail by the learned Special Judge on 12. 01.2015 on certain conditions. The petitioner is aggrieved by one of the conditions that one of the sureties shall be a Keralite. The said condition is sought to be set aside under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides I find no scope or reason to interfere in the condition imposed by the court below. The learned Special Judge imposed such a condition to ensure the petitioner's presence during trial. The Crl.M.C itself shows that the petitioner's brother has some connections in Kerala. If so, he may not find difficult to produce a surety from Kerala. The learned Trial Judge imposed such a condition on the finding that somebody from
Crl. M.C No.1331 of 2015 Kerala will have to take up the responsibility to produce the petitioner during trial. Now there is a proposal to make cash deposit. What we want is not cash, but the accused to face trial. If such a condition is not there, the trial court may find it difficult to procure his presence, if the accused vanishes during trial. However, I find that a direction can be made to the court below to expedite trial, giving top priority of the case of the petitioner as an under trial prisoner. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. However the court below is directed to expedite the trial in S.C No. 96 of 2014, and dispose of the case within the shortest possible period, giving top priority to the case on the consideration that the petitioner is an under trial prisoner. P.UBAID, JUDGE sab