1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2486 of 2011 Selvarasu @ Selvan ... Petitioner Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Q Branch C.I.D, Trichy (Crime No.1 of 2010) ... Respondent PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to modify the condition passed for bail in Cr.M.P.No.7193 of 2010 by Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli as modified in Cr.M.P.No.2631 of 2010 by Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli dated 14.12.2010. For Petitioner : M/s. R.A.S.Anandraj For Respondent : Mr.L.Murugan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for modification of the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli in Crl.M.P.No.2631 of 2010. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner was a Srilankan National and he was in the camp Trichy for Srilankan refugees and he was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 120(b) I.P.C. r/w. 10, 13(1)(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and 5(A) of Explosive Substance Act and 14(a), 14(b) of Foreigner Act. He has applied for bail and the learned Magistrate has granted bail on condition that he should execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties for a like sum. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate was questioned and modification was sought for in Crl.M.P.No.2631 of 2010 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli and the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the petition and modified the condition instead of two solvency sureties, the petitioner was permitted to execute the personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two cash sureties for a like sum. He would further submit that the petitioner has no other go to raise the funds and to pay the cash. Therefore, the execution of personal bond alone be insisted for the grant of bail and the petitioner may be granted such an order may be modified in such a manner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that the petitioner is a Srilankan citizen and there are number of offences committed by him and if personal bond alone is insisted, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 there is a likelihood of absconding, since the petitioner was not originally put up in camp and therefore, there is a possibility of stand still of the investigation. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the petitioner was granted statutory bail as per Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. with certain conditions. The learned magistrate had put up the condition of seeking two sureties along with the personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and it could not be complied with by the petitioner and therefore, he has asked for modification of the condition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge and the learned Principal Sessions Judge had also in turn modified it for a cash sureties instead of the solvent sureties. Now the petition has been filed before this Court to delete the cash sureties, since the petitioner is not in a position to raise the cash as he is a Srilankan citizen. 6. As regards the furnishing of cash sureties concerned, the petitioner ought to have applied for cash sureties in stead of the regular sureties and the Court has to accept the same and therefore it is not the discretion of the Court to impose a condition of paying cash sureties. On a careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, he has exercised his discretion to modify the condition of production of two solvent sureties and permitted the petitioner to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two cash sureties for a like sum. I do not find any offer made by the petitioner for furnishing cash sureties. However, the request for modification was accepted by the Court and thereafter, the cash sureties has been ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the lower Court. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that the petitioner was not originally taken custody from any of the camp and his secured presence is essential for the further continuance of the investigation and to conduct the case and therefore, on such execution of condition, the petitioner may be directed to put under surveillance in any one of the camps meant for Srilankan refugees. The request of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appears to be sound. Therefore, this Court is inclined to delete the cash sureties and order the release of the petitioner on executing of personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- only. However, a further condition is imposed that the petitioner be enrolled in Chengalpat Srilankan Refugees' camp and be under the surveillance of the respondent police. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is ordered. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Triuchirappalli. 2. -DO- Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Triuchirappalli. 3. The Inspector of Police, Q-Branch C.I.D., Triuchirappalli. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1CC TO MR.R.A.S.ANANDARAJ, ADVOCATE SR.10915 akv SR : 29.03.2011 : 3p/6c Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2486 of 2011 01.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/