Mahesh @ Maheswaran v. The State Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.11.2018 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.No.27457 of 2018 Mahesh @ Maheswaran .. Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The State Rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Mettur Police Station, Mettur, Salem District.
(Crime No.289 of 2007) .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside and modify the condition No.1 of the bail order passed in Crl.M.P.No.356 of 2018 in S.C.No.46 of 2015 dated 12.11.2018 on the file of the court of the Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur, Salem District.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Senthilkumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This petition has been filed challenging the order of the Court below imposing the condition to the petitioner to make a cash deposit of Rs.25,000/- as security.
2. The petitioner is facing trial before the Court below for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. Since, the petitioner did not appear before the Court below on several occasions, the Court below had issued non bailable warrant against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested by the police and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 09.10.2018. The petitioner had filed a bail petition before the Court below and the Court below while considering the bail petition, had granted bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:
1. Accused should deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- in this court as cash security;
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2. Accused should execute a bond for the above said amount to forfeit the same to the State Government if he is fail to appear in future without reasonable cause;
3. Accused should appear on 14.11.2018 and subsequent hearing dates."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court below ought not to have insisted for cash security and the petitioner is a very poor person and he is not in a position to comply with the conditions.
4. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. Admittedly, the petitioner had jumped bail and he was secured by the respondent police, after issuance of non bailable warrant. Therefore, the Court below has to necessarily impose stringent condition against the petitioner in order to ensure that the petitioner does not abscond in future. There is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the Court below.
5. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS v) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssr/ub To 1.The Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur, Salem District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Mettur Police Station, Mettur, Salem District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.27457 of 2018 ASK(29/11/2018) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/