(1.) Petitioner, the second accused in Crime No. 1632/2009 of Thodupuzha Police Station was released on bail by Annexure-A1 order dated 28.6.2010 on conditions. One of the conditions was that the Petitioner shall make a cash security deposit of Rs. 20,000/-. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the said direction due to his financial condition and consequential failure to make cash security deposit, he is even now in judicial custody and therefore, the said condition may be modified. Learned Counsel submitted that there is also a further direction that the sureties shall produce solvency certificates and Petitioner is not in a position to get sureties who can produce solvency certificates.
(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that considering the special circumstances of the case, learned Magistrate imposed the impugned conditions.
(3.) Very fact that the Petitioner is still in judicial custody, even though bail was granted under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, on 28.6.2010 establishes that the Petitioner had to be in judicial custody consequent to his failure to comply with the conditions. The second condition in Annexure-A1 order is a direction to make a cash security deposit of Rs. 20,000/-. Imposing such a condition to an accused, who has no financial capacity to make the deposit, would tantamount to denial of the statutory bail. It would also result in denial of the rights of an accused, who is not financially sound when an accused who is having the financial capacity will be released on bail. Poverty is not a sin. In such circumstances, direction to deposit cash security of Rs. 20,000/- is illegal and can only be quashed. Similarly, an accused who cannot get sureties with solvency certificate shall not be denied bail on that ground. What is to be assured is the presence of the accused for the purpose of investigation and trial. If that could be assured by other means, there is no necessity to insist for production of solvency certificate.