Indigent accused entitled to bail on own bond when unable to secure sureties despite prior bail grant.

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Thangavel ... Petitioner/Accused Vs.

The Inspector of Police, Arumbavoor Police Station, Perambalur District.

Crime No.39 of 2025 ... Respondent Prayer :- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying to set aside the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.1896 of 2025 dated 26.11.2025 and release the petitioner on bail to his own bond in S.C.No.51 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Perambalur.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla For Respondent : M/s. P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

*****

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to set aside the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.1896 of 2025 dated 26.11.2025 and release the petitioner on bail to his own bond in S.C.No.51 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur had granted bail to the petitioner on 22.05.2025 with a condition that he shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties and thereafter he filed modification petition before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Permbalur and the learned Judge had modified the condition to the effect that petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-with one surety and that since then he was not in a position to execute sureties and no one is ready to stand as surety. In this connection, he filed application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, wherein considering the heinous offence, the trial Court has rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present application is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Moti Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47 and would contend that India is meant for the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker. He further submitted that the petitioner being a poor person and since because he was not in a position to execute the sureties, he is still in custody.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had murdered his wife suspecting the fidelity.

5. Though, this Court finds that the allegations are heinous, we are only concerned about whether the condition may be relaxed. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur has granted bail on 22.052025 directed to execute bond along with two sureties and subsequently modified vide order dated 02.07.2025 to execute a bond along with one surety. But inspite of such condition, he was not in a position to execute sureties since July 2025. Considering the fact that the petitioner is behind the bar for more than 8 months even after granting bail, this Court is inclined to modify the condition to the effect that the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on his own bond as he has roots in Perambalur District.