JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: C-58M. To modify the conditions imposed on the petitioner while granting bail to the petitioners vide order in Crl.M.P.No.1191 of 2021 dt 20.10.2021 passed by the Honourable Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Thoothukudi.)

1. The Court made the following order :-

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to modify the condition Nos.3 and 4 imposed on the petitioners, while granting bail to the petitioners vide order in Crl.M.P.No.1191 of 2021, dated 20.10.2021, passed by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Thoothukudi and the impugned conditions are extracted as follows:

“3. That the 2nd petitioner/accused shall produce the permanent residential certificate issued by the concerned revenue authorities as he is alleged as the resident of Kanchipuram District;

4. One of the surety shall be blood relative to the accused.”

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the second petitioner is the permanent resident of address mentioned in the petition and that he is residing at Chennai only for eking out his livelihood. He would further submit that the parents of the first petitioner are no more, that his sister and brother are co-accused in this case and that the parents and brother of the second petitioner are not in good terms with him and they are not willing to stand as sureties for the second petitioner.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State would submit that after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case only, the trial Court has imposed the conditions, which do not warrant any interference.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, while granting bail, the conditions imposed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No. 1191 of 2021, dated 20.10.2021 are seemed to be onerous.

6. The Honourable Supreme Court in Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi reported in CDJ 2000 SC 025 has specifically held that any bail condition which is in the nature of onerous condition is against law. Again in Ramathal & Others Vs. Inspector of Police & Another reported in CDJ 2009 SC 443, the Honourable Apex Court has disapproved the bail condition imposed by the bail Court to deposit huge amount.

7. No doubt, the bail Courts while granting bail have the power to impose conditions, but the same is available to ensure the availability of the accused during investigation and during trial. The imposition of bail conditions should be based on sound judicial principles and should not be arbitrary and mechanical and should not be for the sake of imposition of bail conditions.

8. As rightly held by this Court in Navaneetha Krishnan Vs. Inspector of Police, Natrampalli Police Station, Vellore District, reported in 2015 (2) MWN (Cr.) 53, the imposition of onerous and stringent conditions would amount to denial of bail and that under the guise of imposition of bail condition, there shall not be imposition of any onerous condition.

9. It is pertinent to mention that while granting bail, the trial Court, without assigning any reason, has imposed the condition Nos.3 and 4 and the same can only be considered as onerous condition. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned condition Nos.3 and 4, which are onerous, are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the condition Nos. 3 and 4 imposed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1191 of 2021, dated 20.10.2021 are set aside and the petitioners are directed to furnish regular two sureties. The other conditions imposed in Crl.M.P.No.1191 of 2021 shall stand remained unaltered.

10. The Criminal Original Petition is ordered in the above terms.