Madras High Court
G.Manickavasagam vs The State Represented By on 19 July, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9289 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9289 of 2021
G.Manickavasagam .. Petitioner
vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti West Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
Cr.No. 326 of 2021. .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the order passed
by the learned Principal and Sessions Judge,Thoothukudi in Cr.MP.No.
2338 of 2021, dated 24.06.2021 and to set aside the condition (a) in so
far as the direction for deposit of cash security of Rs.1,47,000/- before
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti and the condition in
clause (b) to appear before the respondent police daily twice at 10.00
a.m., and 5.00 p.m., for a period of one month.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9289 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed against the order passed by
the Principal and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, in Cr.MP.No.2338 of
2021, dated 24.06.2021. The petitioner is facing charges under Sections
465, 468 and 420 I.P.C in Crime No.326 of 2021 on the file of the
respondent police.
2.As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was working as Block
Development Officer and he along with the other accused persons forged
document and cheated the Panchayat fund to the tune of Rs.1,47,000/-.
3.He moved an anticipatory bail application before the Principal
Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, in Cr.M.P.No.2338 of 2021 and by the
order, dated 24.06.2021, he was granted anticipatory bail on condition
that cash deposit of Rs.1,47,000/- as security along with usual conditions
and he has also directed to appear before the respondent daily twice, ie.,
10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m., for a period of one month. Now, this petition
is filed seeking order to set aside the above said conditional order with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9289 of 2021
regard to the deposit of cash security of Rs.1,47,000/- and as well as
report before the respondent police twice in a day.
4.Heard both sides.
5.The main grievance of the petitioner is that ordering in cash as
security is onerous. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Manoj Kumar Sood and another Vs. State of Jharkhand in
SLP. (Crl.)No.1274 of 2021, dated 19.03.2021 is cited. In that case, the
petitioner was directed to deposit Bank Guarantee worth about
Rs.53,60,000/-, that was challenged in the above said S.L.P. When the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by following the judgment reported in 2006 (9)
SCC 169 [Shyam Singh Vs. Stated through C.B.I.] observed that the
trial Court or the bail Court should not act as a recovery Court and in the
course of deciding bail application only the fact is such as “the nature of
accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction;
the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable
apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat
to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing
the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9289 of 2021
abscondence; character behavior and standing of the accused; the larger
interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations”, must
be considered.
6.So, on that ground the condition was set aside. This also been
followed in other cases also. So, during the course of arguments, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that actually and in fact he is
the victim of the Crime and according to him, his signature has been
forged by the other co-accused persons and misappropriated the amount.
So, for the forgery committed by the co-accused, he cannot be penalized.
Reading of the order of the Court shows that it was imposed that the
condition to deposit the security amount in tune with the misappropriated
amount in this case. So, I am of the considered view that relying upon
the earlier orders, I am of the considered view that imposing of the cash
security is onerous in nature and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, that
condition alone is set aside.
7.With regard to reporting before the respondent police twice in a
day, if the petitioner is experiencing any difficulty, he has to approach the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9289 of 2021
concerned court which granted anticipatory bail, for modification or
relaxation as the case may be. So, this Court cannot interfere in the
condition that has been imposed with regard to reporting.
8.So, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed in part and the
condition imposing deposit of cash security of Rs.1,47,000/- alone is set
aside. In respect of other condition in the petition, this petition is
dismissed.
19.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Ls
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Principal and Sessions Judge,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Kovilpatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9289 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
Ls
3.The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti West Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9289 of 2021
19.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
