Dominic alias Jolly v. State of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. Ramakrishnan
- Judgment Date
- 2015-01-06
- Court Decision / Holding
- The court partially allows the Cr.M.C. The cash of Rs.1,91,585 is to be released to the petitioner on the following conditions: (i) execute a bond for Rs.1,91,585 with two solvent sureties of equivalent sums; (ii) furnish property security by creating a charge on the property, after obtaining a value report and ensuring the Registrar records the charge; (iii) file an affidavit that the petitioner will not alienate or encumber the property pending disposal of the case; (iv) produce certified copies of the affidavit to the Registrar within three weeks. The mobile phone and other articles are kept in custody. The order directs the matter to be communicated to the trial court. The case is therefore disposed of in part.
- Final Disposition
- Partly allowed; disposed of.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Dominic alias Jolly
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala Ernakulam through the Sub Inspector of Police Ernakulam Central Police Station
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • P. M. Ziraj
Counsels for Respondents
- • Public Prosecutor K. K. Rajeev
Case Synopsis & Summary
Dominic alias Jolly, the accused in Crime No.1813/2013 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, sought interim release of seized cash and the Nokia mobile phone under Cril.M.C.No.4909/2013 in CC No.244/2013 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The police had seized Rs.1,91,585, a mobile phone, blank signed cheques and stamp papers during a raid, on allegations of illegal money lending and charging exorbitant interest under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest Act. The CJM, after investigation, took cognizance and framed charges; in Cr.M.P.No.4909/2013, the court released only the mobile phone and other articles as personal belongings on bond and sureties, while the cash was not released. The petitioner challenged this under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Public Prosecutor opposed release of cash, arguing it could be misused. The High Court relied on Sasikumar v. State of Kerala (2013 (2) KHC 886) to allow interim custody of the amount on security, while permitting the court below to decide the form of security. The order ultimately directs release of Rs.1,91,585 on conditions: bond for the amount with two solvent sureties, property security, and an affidavit not to encumber the property, with the Registrar to reflect the charge. The mobile phone and other articles remain with the court. The case is disposed of in part by this order.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no purpose will be served by keeping the seized money, and there was no complaint that it was intended for money lending as alleged; he is ready to abide by any condition. He argued that releasing the mobile phone would affect the trial since it is evidence, and that the cash, which is the petitioner's own property, should be released under conditions similar to those recognized in prior decisions, such as securing the amount through bonds or other security.
Contentions of Respondents
The Public Prosecutor opposed releasing the cash, contending that it could be misused if released; argued that the mobile phone is crucial evidence and releasing the cash and phone may prejudice the investigation and trial.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sasikumar v. State of Kerala | 2013 (2) KHC 886 | Positive | Cited to justify interim custody of seized amount subject to security, influencing the present court’s conditional release order. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dominic alias Jolly v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.