Krishnakumar vs The State

S. Vaidyanathan, J.—The petitioner has come forward seeking a total relaxation of the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge for TANPID Cases, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No. 1642 of 2014, as he is in judicial custody for more than 165 days and he will not be in a position to deposit Rs.5 lakhs as ordered by the TANPID Court.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a decision reported in Parthiban @ Arjunan Vs. State by Sub Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station, Mangadu, , wherein, this Court held that while imposing conditions, the Courts have to take into account, the ability of the petitioner to pay the amount and imposition of condition must have some avowed objective with intention to ensure availability of accused. He also relied upon yet another decision of this Court in 2006 (2) MWN (Cr.) 464, (Liagat Ali Khan @ Yacub Vs The Inspector of Police, (CCB Team-I) Egmore, Chennai-08), stating that the Courts, while granting the relief of anticipatory bail, have to exercise discretion of imposition of condition judiciously and directing deposit of cash security of Rs.5 lakhs as a onerous one and in that case, the petitioner was directed to pay immovable property security of Rs.10 lakhs, a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum and the petitioner was directed to furnish the permanent residential address.

The Honourable Supreme Court in U. Palaniappan and Another Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, , has held as follows:

On the facts and circumstances of this case, the condition imposed by the High Court, while granting anticipatory bail that the first appellant should deposit Rs.10 lakhs and the second appellant should deposit Rs.5 lakhs before getting the benefit of anticipatory bail in our opinion is onerous. Hence, in modification of the said order, while affirming the grant of anticipatory bail, we direct the appellants to furnish a self-bond of Rs.50,000/- each and one surety for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court, or the, arresting authority as the case may be.

The petitioner stated that he is acting as an agent and the Director of Company let off on bail, pursuant to the orders in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 16740 of 2013, dated 13.11.2013, Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 15699 of 2014, dated 22.08.2014 and Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 16914 of 2014, dated 18.09.2014. The petitioner may be released on bail and he is willing to abide the condition and not the onerous condition, imposed by the lower Court.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the petitioner herein is response for siphoning off more than Rs.2 crores and hence, no leniency could be shown to him.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is only an agent and the Director of the Company is let off on bail, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail and the petitioner is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties each for a like sum. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court concerned on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m until further orders.

With above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.