Sakthivel and Others vs The State

P. Devadass, J—Since these Crl.O.Ps. are connected on facts and on law and since similar arguments have been heard, this common order is being passed.

In Crl.O.P. No. 835 of 2015, accused Sakthivel seeks modification of the bail condition imposed in the bail order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal passed in C.M.P. No. 1560 of 2015 on 07.01.2015.

In Crl.O.P. No. 836 of 2015, in the very same case, co-accused Ragupathy seeks modification of condition in the anticipatory bail order passed by the said Judge, in C.M.P. No. 1564 of 2014 on 07.01.2015.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners are very poor. However, as part of bail condition, they were directed to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- each. It is onerous in nature. It causes them much hardship. Petitioners belongs to lower strata of society. They are poor daily coolies. They have no financial capacity to deposit the said amount.

According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) taking into account, the nature and magnitude of the offence committed, the Court has imposed such a condition.

According to the learned counsel for the intervenor petitioners have also participated in setting ablaze number of buses belonging to an educational Institution and extensive damage has been caused to the properties. Similar bail condition has been imposed on certain co-accused. They challenged it in the Hon''ble Supreme Court. However, their SLPs were dismissed. There is no case for either deleting or diluting any portion of the bail condition.

I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

In Namakkal District, Kalaimagal Educational Trust is running a school. On 03.10.2014, several buses parked in the school playground were ravaged by fire. Luckily, no child was hurt. Duraimurugan, a Trustee of the Educational Trust lodged police complaint. A case was registered.

There is infighting among the trustees to have control of the Trust and its properties. Some civil litigation is also going on. In this backdrop of the matter, this incident of mischief by fire took place. Several persons are behind this fire incident. It includes certain Trustees and leaders.

Petitioners were alleged to have been employed by certain main accused. Petitioners cannot be elevated to the level of trustees. Petitioners are dumb driven cattle. They are mere arrows.

Petitioners do not belongs to affluent section of the society. They are not propertied. They are not monied. They are daily coolies. They work under a poverty alleviation Scheme.

On 27.10.2014 in Crl.O.P. No. 27593 of 2014 while granting anticipatory bail to certain co-accused, this Court directed them to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- each. They are trustees and key persons in this case. On 10.11.2014, in Crl.O.P. No. 28865/2014, this Court granted anticipatory bail to a co-accused and directed him to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/-. He is also a Trustee.

In Crl.O.P. Nos. 30444 and 30491 of 2014 on 6.12.2014, this Court granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Kanagarajan and others. They were also directed to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- each. They are key accused. On 16.1.2015, in SLP (Crl.) No. 106-107 of 2015, the Hon''ble Supreme Court refused to alter this direction.

On 7.1.2015, in CMP. No. 1560 of 2014, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal granted bail to co-accused Sakthivel in CMP. No. 1564 of 2014 and co-accused Ragupathy was granted anticipatory bail by the said Judge. Taking note of the direction of this Court to certain co-accused to deposit certain amount, the learned Principal Sessions Judge also similarly directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- each.

Either under Section 438, or under Section 437, 439 of Cr.P.C., it is not that the Courts have no power to impose such bail condition. But the condition should not be imposed for the sake of imposing condition. It must have some objective. It must be reasonable. It should not be oppressive in nature. It should be performable, executable. In imposing condition, the Court must take into account the individual''s position, financial capacity and his role in the case.

While imposing condition on an accused, the Court has to apply its judicial mind. It cannot be uniform irrespective of the rank, role and financial capacity of the accused. There shall not be mechanical application of mind. It must differ from case to case, person to person even in the same case. It should be a judicial analysis of various relevant factors concerning the accused. It should be an individualised decision (See N. Sasikala vs. The Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Shastri Bhawan, Madras-6 (Crl.O.P. No. 5718 of 1996 dated 24.9.2008).

For instance, even in the same case, some accused may be rich, some accused may be poor, some may be main accused and some may be just arrows. If similar condition is imposed on all the accused regardless of the aspects we have stated already, then it is not proper exercise of judicial mind.

It will be an unequal treatment. It will be against the principle of equality before law because equals only should be treated alike and not unequals. It is violative of Article 14, 21, Constitution of India and it will be ''unreasonable'', ''unjust'' and ''inequitable'' and it will thus militate against the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248 : (1978) 2 SCR 621 .

Inspite of having obtained bail order on 7.1.2015 itself still accused Sakthivel is in jail. It indicates his inability to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is also the case of accused Ragupathy because he has no money to deposit such an amount and execute the bail bond.

This Court directed depositing of similar amount on certain co-accused, since they are Trustees, wealthy and are main accused in this case. The SLP was also preferred by them.

However, Sakthivel and Ragupathy are ordinary coolies. They are poor. They are not like the other accused. In the circumstances, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal is not right in directing the petitioners also to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- each.

In view of the foregoings, this Court is of the view that the condition imposed on the petitioners are onerous and oppressive in nature.

In the circumstances, in the bail order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, passed in CMP. No. 1560 and in the anticipatory bail order passed in CMP. No. 1564 of 2014 on 07.01.2015, the condition to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- is deleted. Other conditions remain unaltered.