This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.8/2014 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Enforcement Squad, Kottayam challenging the condition imposed by the Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Thodupuzha under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was arrayed as accused in Crime No.8/2014 of Excise Range Office, Kottayam alleging commission of the offence under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (Hereinafter Called the 'NDPS Act'). He filed Crl.M.C.No.1/2014 before the Special Court for granting statutory bail after 60 days of pre trial detention and the learned Special Judge had granted bail with conditions inter alia that the sureties should be from the same locality. Thereafter, he filed Crl.M.P.No.229/2014 for modifying that condition that was also dismissed by the learned Special Judge by Annexure B order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court seeking modification of that condition imposed in Annexure B order.
3. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since he is not a person from the locality, it is very difficult for him to get sureties from that locality and he is prepared to produce sureties from any other place to the satisfaction of the court below.
5. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested by the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Enforcement Squad, Kottayam along with some narcotic substance and thereafter, Crime No.8/2014 was registered alleging offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. It is also an admitted fact that after 60 days, he moved Crl.M.C.No.1/2014 seeking statutory bail and the same was granted as per Annexure C order with conditions inter alia that both sureties should be from the same locality. Thereafter, he filed Annexure A application to modify the said condition, but that was dismissed by the learned Special Judge as per Annexure B order.
7. The purpose of insisting for sureties is to get the presence of the accused either at the time of investigation or at the time of trial. Getting a surety from a particular place may not be possible to be procured for an accused sometimes. If such a condition is imposed and if that condition is not possible to be complied with, then, the purpose of bail will be defeated as far as the accused is concerned. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is prepared to produce surety from Kottayam District and in fact, he had produced two sureties from that District. So, considering the circumstances instead of insisting sureties from the same locality where the petitioner is residing directing the petitioner to produce two sureties, one of whom being is close relative will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice. So, condition No-II imposed by the court below directing the petitioner to produce sureties from the same locality is set aside, the same is modified as follows:
The petitioner is directed to produce two sureties, one of whom must be a close relative of the accused.
With the above modifications, the petition is disposed of.
Hand over the copy of the order to the Counsel for the petitioner so as to enable him to produce the same before the concerned court.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge