This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner/accused, challenging the condition imposed in Crl.M.P.2231/2014 on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner was arrayed as accused in Crime No.82/2014 of Karthikappally Excise Range. He was arrested and remanded to custody and he filed Crl.M.P.No.2231/2014 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, for release him on bail. The learned Sessions Judge by Annexure-AI order allowed the application and granted bail on conditions inter- alia that he shall make a security deposit of ₹10,000/- before the learned magistrate concerned for ensuring his presence during trial proceedings. This condition is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, imposing a condition which is impossible to comply with will amount to denial of bail. Further such a practice has been deprecated by this court.
4. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this court felt that, the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner was arrested in connection with Crime No.82/2014 of Karthikappally Excise Range and he was remanded to custody and he filed Crl.M.P.No.2231/2014 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The Sessions Court by Annexure-A1 order allowed the application and granted bail, but as one of the conditions for releasing him, directed him to furnish a cash security of ₹10,000/- before the magistrate court for ensuring his presence during trial is harsh. It may mentioned here, this court has in earlier decisions, had deprecated the practice of directing cash security as condition for granting bail, as the poor condition of an accused should not be a ground for denying bail. Further, mere deposit of the cash security is not going to ensure his presence, at the most, even if he jumps bail, court can only forfeit the amount, that is not going to help to ensure his presence, if he did not voluntarily participate in the trial. So under the circumstances, the condition No.5 imposed by the court below, directing the petitioner to make a cash deposit of ₹ 10,000/- is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside.
So the application is allowed and condition No.5 alone imposed by the court below in Crl.M.P.2231/2014 is hereby set aside. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss