The main legal point established is that bail conditions should not be onerous and should be based on sound judicial principles, taking into consideration the financial situation of the accused and the Constitutional duty to provide legal aid.

As these petitions are connected on factual matrix and are directed as against the similar orders of the trial Court, they are tagged together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These petitions are filed under section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. seeking modification of the bail-condition imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Sub-Judge), Tirupattur.

3. The Natrampalli Police in Vellore District registered these cases under Sections 395 and 397 I.P.C. as against the petitioners.

4. Petitioners have sought for bail in these cases in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

5. On 21.8.2014, in all these cases, the Trial Court passed prototype order granting them bail, however, directing them to deposit Rs.25,000/- as cash security in each case.

6. Aggrieved, the petitioners have directed these Criminal Original Petitions to modify the said bail condition.

7. The details of the petitions are as under:

SL. No.	Name of the accused	Crime No.	Crl.M.P. No. (Trial Court)	S.C.No	Crl.O.P.No. (High Court)
1	Navaneetha Krishnan	42/2011	52/2014	14/2013	4707/2015
2	Navaneetha Krishnan	55/2011	-do-	15/2013	4708/2015
3	Navaneetha Krishnan	41/2011	-do-	13/2013	4709/2015
4	Vinoth Kumar	41/2011	53/2014	13/2013	4710/2015
5	Vinoth Kumar	42/2011	-do-	14/2013	4711/2015
6	Vinoth Kumar	55/2011	-do-	15/2013	4712/2015
7	Sathish Kumar	42/2011	54/2014	14/2013	4713/2015
8	Sathish Kumar	55/2011	-do-	15/2013	4714/2015
9	Sathish Kumar	42/2011	-do-	13/2013	4715/2015

8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupattur granted them bail in the following terms and conditions:

“ORDER

2. This court issued notice to the Respondent/Complainant and the Additional Public Prosecutor in Dis.No.1719/2014, dated 19.08.2014.

3. There is no reply from the respondent/complainant and the Additional Public Prosecutor and this court passed the following order:

No reply from police and Additional Public Prosecutor. The accused is in custody from 25.2.2011. The case is under trial stage. There is no necessity arise to detain the accused in prison and no any explanation from the side of State with reasonable cause to retain the accused in judicial custody. This court inclined to release the accused on bail with following conditions.

1. Accused should deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cash security for each case separately and execute a bond for the likesum to forfeit the same to the State if he failed to appear in court without any reasonable cause.

2. Accordingly, this bail application allowed.”

9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners are very poor. They have no money even to engage a lawyer. In the bail petitions, they themselves have appeared before the Trial Court. In the circumstances, the Trial Court directing them to deposit Rs.25,000/- in each case as cash security is onerous and causes them much hardship. They have no money to deposit. That is how they are suffering in jail, inspite of the bail orders. The Trial Court cannot straightaway direct them to make cash security. In the circumstances, the said bail condition may be modified.

10. The learned Government Advocate submitted that since the accused are involved in property offences, such a condition has been imposed on them.

11. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned bail orders and also the several decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

12. Now, 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is the Exception'. Generally, grant of bail is to be considered because it is in furtherance of liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21, Constitution of India. However, in certain circumstances such as seriousness of the offence alleged, habituality in