N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THIS application is through Jail moved for bail granted by the Sessions Judge.

( 2 ) THE point for consideration is this application is whether the learned Sessions Judge while releasing the petitioner on bail by exercising power under S. 439, Cr. P. C. was right in insisting that the petitioner shall apart from executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with other conditions shall also deposit a cash surety of Rs. 750/- in each case.

( 3 ) A complaint was lodged against the petitioner by the Girinagar Police, Bangalore in C. C. Nos. 619, 713, 716, 717, 718, 994 and 996 of 1988 and 2145 and 2146 of 1990 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offence punishable under S. 379, I. P. C. in all the cases.

( 4 ) THE petitioner was in judicial custody. He moved for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore under S. 439, Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge found the petitioner as entitled for bail and rightly ordered for his bail. However, he put among other conditions, a condition that in each case the petitioner shall deposit a cash security of Rs. 750/- which comes to Rs. 6,750/ -. Aggrieved by the same, the said petitioner preferred this application seeking for modification of this condition imposed.

( 5 ) WHEN the case was listed for orders on 19-8-1991 Smt. C. S. Padma Rekha, Junior member of the Bar was requested to appear as Amicus Curiae to the petitioner. As desired by her, a week's time was granted.

( 6 ) WHEN the case listed today for hearing, she contended that the learned Sessions Judge was not right in insisting a condition that the petitioner shall deposit a cash security of Rs. 750/- in each of the nine cases. Since the petitioner is a poor man, insisting such a condition to comply with, will amount to denial of the very bail that was granted. According to her, the conditions other than this condition imposed in the order are themselves sufficient to see that the petitioner does not flee from justice or shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. To say that the approach of the Sessions Judge in insisting cash deposit, of Rs. 750/- in each case is incorrect and oppressive in nature she relied on a decision reported in (1967) 2 Mys LJ 294: (1968 Cri LJ 696) wherein this Court has held as follows (State of Mysore v. Venkatarama): -"section 499, Cr. P. C. reads as follows: 'before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the Police Officer or Court as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond and shall continue so to until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be. ' it is clear from the words of the section that it contemplates taking of a personal bond from the accused person and a bond by one or more sureties. The section does not empower the Magistrate to demand cash security. Section 513, Cr. P. C. states that when any person is required by any Court or officer to execute a bond, with or without sureties, such Court or officer may, except in the case of a bond for good behaviour, permit him to deposit a sum or money or Government promissory notes to such amount as the Court or Officer may fix, in lieu of executing such bond. According to the section, if the accused wants to deposit any sum of money, it is open to the Court to accept the same. But the law does not empower the Court to insist on cash deposit to be made by the accused. In R. R. Chari v. Emperor, AIR 1948 All 238: (1948 (49) Cri LJ 282), Wanchoo, J. (as he then was) held that S. 499, Cr. P. C. does not authorise the Magistrate to demand cash security from the accused. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment, his Lordship observed as follows: "the language of S. 499, Crl. P. C. makes it perfectly clear that what

Click Here to Read the rest of this document