MOTTAIYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed praying to modify the condition imposed on the petitioner in the order dated 20.1.2018, made in Cr. M.P. No. 14 of 2018 in Crime No. 1483 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Trichy. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Trichy, on 14.12.2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376, IPC r/w Sections 5(i) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The petitioner herein has moved a petition before the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Trichy, in Cr.M.P. No. 14 of 2018, for bail and the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Trichy, after hearing both sides, enlarged the petitioner on bail, vide her impugned order dated 20.1.2018 with a condition to stay at Madurai and report before the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Madurai, daily 10.00 a.m. until further orders and on further condition that to produce two sureties each for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and also on condition that the original title deed, Patta and Solvency Certificate obtained from the concerned Tahsildar have to be produced before the Court.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Trichy, returned the sureties Memo submitted by the petitioner/accused on 24.1.2018 by stating that the petitioner/accused has to produce the Patta, documents copy and Solvency Certificate. He further submitted that when the petitioner/accused produced solvent sureties, who are working in the Trichy Corporation and receiving handsome salary, their salary certificates may be accepted. He also submitted that the conditions directing the petitioner to furnish Patta, Original Title Deed and Solvency Certificate obtained from the Tahsildar are onerous and in fact, the imposition of the said conditions amounts to denial of bail and in number of Judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court time and again held that while enlarging the accused on bail, onerous condition should not be imposed and prayed for modification of the said conditions.

(3.) This Court heard the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent on the abovesaid submission.