M.S. Ramesh, J.

The prayer in the present petition is to modify the condition imposed in the order dated 27.07.2017 in Crl. M.P. No. 11178 of 2017, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as precondition to the grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Heard Mr. V.S. Mannarsamy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai, by order dated 27.07.2017 in Crl. M.P. No. 11178 of 2017, had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the credit of the crime number along with other conditions. Since the petitioner could not mobilise the funds, he has come forward with the present petition.

4. This is not a first case where I have come across such onerous conditions being passed, while granting an order of bail or anticipatory bail pending investigation. When there is a procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure for receiving a complaint and investigating into the same, it is for the police authorities to take a final decision on the authenticity of the various averments made in the complaint based on the statement of witnesses and other evidences. I am unable to comprehend as to how the Court ordering a bail or anticipatory bail can come to the conclusion that the averments in the complaint is true even before the charge sheet/report is filed. In a case where false or fictitious complaint has been made against an innocent person, would it not amount to grave injustice by directing such a person who has been detained in jail or apprehending arrest to deposit some amount as a pre-condition for grant of bail or anticipatory bail? Furthermore, the Court granting such orders cannot step into the shoes of the Investigating Authorities and assume that the accused had committed an offence and thereby, impose onerous conditions. As a matter of fact, various other cases in which onerous conditions of depositing of title deeds or sureties from Government employees are also being passed. When the Court takes a view that a prima facie case has been made out for the purpose of granting bail or anticipatory bail, by no stretch of imagination, any onerous condition be passed, thereby thwarting and making the order in-executable. The question of the powers of the trial Court imposing onerous condition while granting bail was elaborately discussed in the following judgments:

(i) In Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi (2000 (2) SCC 66) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any bail condition which is in the nature of onerous condition, is against law.

(ii) In Ramathal & Others v. Inspector of Police & Another (2009 (12) SCC 721) the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not approve a bail condition of the Subordinate Court to deposit huge amount.

(iii) In Sakthivel v. Inspector of Police Belukurichi Police Station Namakkal District (2015 (2) MWN (Cr.) 438), this Court held that the bail condition should be executable and it should not be onerous and oppressive in nature.

(iv) In Navaneetha Krishnan v. Inspector of Police Natrampalli Police Station Vellore District [2015 (2) MWN (Cr.) 53], this Court had observed that the conditions which are in the nature of and which could not be complied with by the accused, would be like granting bail by one hand and taking it away by another hand."

5. Likewise, a learned brother Judge of this Court also had dealt on this issue in the case in Sagayam @ Devasagayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2017 (3) CTC 291. The relevant portion of the order goes to read as hereunder:-

"55. It is profitable to note the following from the said judgment:

"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