AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Malai Subramanian, J.—The petitioner in Crl. O. Ps. 1967, 1968 and 2005 of 2001 is one and the same and he stands charged for offences
under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. in all these three cases. The learned Magistrate, while granting bail to the petitioner, directed the petitioner to
furnish cash security of Rs. 5,000/- and to execute a bond for Rs. 5,000/-with two sureties each for a likesum. Aggrieved against the order of the
learned Magistrate, the petitioner went on revision in all these three cases before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, who also
confirmed the order of the Magistrate. Hence those petitions are filed u/s 482, Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor man and he is not capable of paying any cash security as
directed by the learned Magistrate and as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, the imposition of cash security may please be
deleted. Learned Government Advocate (Cri. Side) submits that the offences committed by the accused/petitioner are grave in nature and
therefore, imposition of cash security cannot be said to be in any way onerous.
While granting bail under Chapter 33 of Cr.P.C, the provisions found therein have to be scrupulously followed by the Subordinate Courts.
Section 441 Cr.P.C. reads that before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the Court
thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person. Section 441 does not speak about deposit of any cash security. Only in certain contingencies,
where the accused is unable to secure sureties for his release, he is permitted to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory Note as the
Court may fix in lieu of executing such bond, u/s 445, Cr.P.C. Therefore, imposing deposit of cash security along with execution of bond with two
sureties is not permissible under law. Thus, the trial Court as well as the revisional Court have contravened the provisions enshrined u/s 445 of the
Cr.P.C. and on that sole ground, the orders passed by both the Courts are liable to be set aside, in so far as the imposition of deposit of amount of
Rs. 5,000/- by way of cash security in concerned.
In the result, all the petitions stand allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge to deposit a sum
of Rs. 5,000/- by way of cash security is set aside and stands quashed. Crl. M. Ps. 741, 742 and 784 of 2001 are closed.