1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM CRL.R.C.(MD)No.190 of 2011 1.V.Muthulakshmi W/o.Veluchamy Vivekananda Nagar, Sengunthapuram, 12th cross, Karur. 2.M.Veluchamy S/o.Muthuchamy Vivekananda Nagar, Sengunthapuram, 12th cross, Karur. : Petitioner/Accused 2 & 3 Vs. The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police Karur District crime Branch, Karur : Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the condition No.4 of the order dated 24.02.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.285 of 2011 imposed by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions Judge, Karur. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Revision seeks to set aside the condition imposed by the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Karur, while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.285 of 2011 before it on 24.02.2011. 2. While imposing other conditions in granting the relief, the lower Court, having recorded that the petitioners were prepared to settle the issue, has imposed a condition that the petitioners have to settle the dispute with the de-facto complainant within ten days https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 from the date of order and that the failure to do so would result in the interim anticipatory bail granted by it being automatically cancelled, in which event, the respondent police would be at liberty to secure the petitioners. 3. The order further informs that, in case, the petitioners settled the issue within ten days, they would be entitled to file a fresh application before the Court seeking anticipatory bail, in case, the complaint is not withdrawn by the de-facto complainant. It is informed that a suit in O.S.No.41 of 2010 is pending before the District Court, Karur and that such suit came to be filed by the first accused in the case, since having entered upon a sale agreement, the de-facto complainant had changed her mind and demanded higher consideration. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the State. 5. The Apex Court repeatedly has held that in granting the relief of bail, onerous condition ought not be imposed. The condition now complained of in effect amounts to having the damocles sword hanging over the head of the petitioners. The condition complained of is set aside. The order of the lower Court is modified to one grant of regular anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. The other conditions imposed by the lower Court in its order dated 24.02.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.285 of 2011 shall remain. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Sessions Judge, Karur. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police Karur District crime Branch, Karur 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRL.R.C.(MD)No.190 of 2011 03.03.2011 RR NSV/22.3.11/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/