N. SATHISH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was arrayed as an accused, had been granted bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai on 10.09.2019 in Crl. M.P. No. 18378 of 2019, on certain conditions.

(2.) It is now a settled law that when a Court considers a statutory bail, onerous condition cannot be imposed and the Court has to satisfy itself with the only requirement as to whether the accused persons are prepared to furnish bail. Useful reference can be made to the Judgement of this Court in 2019 (1) LW(Crl.) 387 in the case of Umadevi v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, EOW II, Coimbatore. Therefore, the condition imposed by the Court below to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- requires interference and since the petitioner is not in a position to comply with the said condition, they are not able to come out on bail till today.

(3.) In the result, the condition imposed by the Court below in paragraph 6(b) of the order in Crl. M.P. No. 18378 of 2019, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the credit of Crime No. 210 of 2019 is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties for a like sum, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.