1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:18.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7249 of 2011 1.Pooja Kumari 2.Rajeshkumaji Jain .. Petitioners/Accused 3 & 4 Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur Police Station, Thuraiyur, Tiruchy District Crime No.144 of 2011 .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to modify the 1st condition imposed on the petitioners herein by the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Tiruchy District in C.M.P.No.2640 of 2011 dated 12.05.2011 to the effect that the petitioners shall be permitted to execute a bond for Rs.5000/- each with two sureties for the likesum instead of executing a bond for Rs.10000/- each two blood relation sureties. For Petitioners : Ms.Muthumani Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan, G.A.,(Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to modify the 1st condition imposed on the petitioners herein by the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Tiruchy District in C.M.P.No.2640 of 2011 dated 12.05.2011 to the effect that the petitioners shall be permitted to execute a bond for Rs.5000/- each with two sureties for the likesum instead of executing a bond for Rs.10000/- each two blood relation sureties. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the husband of A3, a case has been registered against the petitioners and others in crime No.144 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 406, 408 and 420 I.P.C. and the petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A4. He would further submit that the petitioners filed an application in C.M.P.2640 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, for granting of bail and the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned considered the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody from 20.04.2011 and the investigation is early stage, granted bail to the petitioner and since the petitioners are belong to Rajasthan State, he imposed the following condition. “1.Each accused should execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each and these sureties should be in blood relation with the accused and each accused should produce residence proof showing their permanent residence; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.They should appear before this Court daily at 10.00 am and 5.00 pm and sign regularly until further orders. 3.They should be available for interrogation before the respondent's police as and when required.” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that since the petitioners are the native of Rajasthan State, they have no blood relations in Tamil Nadu and hence, they are ready to deposit sum amount instead of two sureties. 3.This Court called for the entire records from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur and perused the same. 4.The husband of the 1st petitioner/A3 has preferred a complaint on the basis of which, a case has been registered for the offence under Sections 406, 408 and 420 I.P.C. on 28.03.2011 against 4 persons and these petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A4. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the 1st petitioner/A3 herein has got married the defacto complainant and on the date of marriage itself, they received amount from the defacto complainant and she left her matrimonial home for seeing her sister, who gave birth a child, but she never returned back and when the defacto complainant contacted one Vijayaraj, no response from him. Thereafter, they personally gone to the place of the accused and made an enquiry, no such persons were available in that place. To prove the marriage solemnised between the defacto complainant and 1st petitioner/A3, the defacto complainant has produced the photos and marriage invitation. Perusal of the record would clearly prove that on the date of marriage, the accused persons received the amount from the defacto complainant and the 1st petitioner left the matrimonial home for seeing her sister who gave birth a child, but she never returned back. Then only, they gone to the place and made an enquiry, where they came to know that no such persons were available and hence, he preferred a complaint, on the basis of which, the case has been registered for the offence under Sections 406, 408 and 420 I.P.C. 5.In such circumstances, the trial Court considered all the aspects and came to the correct conclusion and imposing condition, while enlarging the petitioners on bail. 6.It is appropriate on the part of this Court to consider the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in N.Sasikala Vs. Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Shastri Bhavan, Madras. In the above said decision, it was considered that whether the Magistrate can insist for cash security as a condition precedent to release a person on bail. In that, it was stated that that the Court has no power to order cash deposit to release the person on bail and the power of court to insist for cash security is discretionary power and provision of law gives concession to accused persons to make deposit of cash in lieu of executing bond where accused is unable to produce sureties. It was also stated that the quantum of cash deposit cannot be mechanically fixed and quantum should be reasonable and not onerous. There is no quarrel over of the said proposition. In the present case, after few days of the marriage, the 1st petitioner left the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 matrimonial home and after the enquiry made by the defacto complainant, no person has been found in the address given by the petitioners. Hence, the defacto complainant preferred the complaint and the case has been registered and the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. If the petitioners are directed to deposit the amount and they are released on bail, the petitioners will abscond from the jurisdiction and the disposal of the case will be delayed. 7.In the above said circumstances, I do not find any perverse in the conditions imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur and I find no merits in the criminal original petition and the same deserved to be dismissed. 8.Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed and the conditions imposed on the petitioners herein by the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Tiruchy District in C.M.P.No.2640 of 2011 dated 12.05.2011 is hereby confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur Police Station, Thuraiyur, Tiruchy District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Arul SR : 29.08.2011 : 3p/3c Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7249 of 2011 18.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/