1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:10.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14092 of 2011 Murugesan :Petitioner/Accused No.2 -Vs- State rep. By The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur (In Crime No.32 of 2011) :Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the condition No.1 imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur made in Crl.M.P.No.1510 of 2011 on 13.10.2011 to deposit a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Judcial Magistrate No.I, Karur and further produce security for sum of Rs.25 Lakhs either by way of valuable document or by issuing Bank guarantee. For Petitioner : Mr.Gopala Krishnalakshnaraman S.C. for Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam For Respondent : Mr.P.Kannithevan, Govt. Advocate[Crl side] For Intervenor : Mr.P.Athimoola Pandian for intervenor O R D E R The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.32 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 420 and 506 (I) IPC, seeking anticipatory bail, he filed Crl.M.P.No.1510 of 2011. By an order dated 13.10.2011, the learned Sessions Judge, has granted anticipatory bail on certain conditions. One such condition is that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur and also produce bank guarantee for Rs.25 lakhs. Aggrieved over this condition, the petitioner has come up with this petition. 2. I have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the intervenor, who has intervened in this matter on behalf of the de-facto complainant. 3. The learned Senior counsel would submit that the condition imposed by the trial Court is onerous and this would ultimately amount to denial of bail to the petitioner. The learned Senior counsel, would pray for the cancellation of the said condition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that instead of depositing Rs.10 lakhs, the petitioner may be directed to produce bank guarantee for Rs.35 lakhs. 5. But the learned Senior counsel would submit that the petitioner is prepared to produce bank guarantee for Rs.20 lakhs. 6. I have considered the above submissions. 7. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly, the condition imposed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail should not be onerous one. In this case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, the part played by him is that he came in the picture only subsequent to the alleged commission of the crime by the first accused, who is the father of the petitioner. He has got no main major role in the commission of crime. That is the reason why the learned Sessions Judge while declining to grant anticipatory bail to the accused 1 and 3 has granted bail only to this petitioner. 8. Having regard to the legal position as well as the factual aspects involved in this case, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met with, if the petitioner is directed to produce bank guarantee for Rs.20 lakhs, as it is offered by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge as stated above is set aside and instead there shall be a direction to the petitioner to produce bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs. The time to surrender as stipulated by the learned Sessions Judge is extended by four weeks from today. RR Sd/- Assistant Registrar[AS] /True copy/ To Sub Assistant Registrar 1. The Sessions Judge, Karur. 2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur. 3. The The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, Advocate SR.No.38839. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14092 of 2011 Dated:10.11.2011 2P/6C RPB 18.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/