Sathyanarayanamoorthy vs The State

V. Periya Karuppiah, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner for modification of the condition imposed against the petitioner in the

order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam in Crl.M.P. No. 1475 of 2009 dated 16.03.2009 in respect of the production of

solvency certificate that has to be counter signed by the Tahsildar with regard to two sureties for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and also for the production

of original document about the propery.

Heard Mr. B. Jeyakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Rajendran, learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) for the

State.

According the to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this

Court with a condition to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the de-facto complainant within certain time and he could pay a sum of Rs. 1,77,400/-

(Rupees One lakh Seventy Seven Thousand and Four Hundred Only) out of the said amount and he could not pay the balance amount.

Subsequently, the petitioner had surrendered before the lower Court and he was also remanded to judicial custody.

He would further submit that the respondent did not complete the investigation within the statutory period of ninety days and therefore, the

petitioner had filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam seeking for statutory bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. He would also

submit that while granting bail to the petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam had imposed a condition against the petitioner to

execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs along with two sureties each for a like sum and the solvency certificate to be countersigned by Tahsildar

and also by the production of the original document by the said sureties. He would further submit that the said condition imposed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate is an onerous one and it is not necessitated at the time of granting bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the

petitioner is entitled for bail statutorily, when the charge sheet has not been filed within the period of ninety days as per Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and

therefore, suitable orders may be passed for the modification of the condition imposed against the petitioner.

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that this Court had originally granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner

with condition, but the petitioner did not pay the amount as directed by this Court and he surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Tirumangalam and was remanded to judicial custody on 14.12.2008 and was continuously in judicial custody and the investigation is still pending.

He would further submit that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalm in granting the bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C is justifiable in

view of the non-compliance of the petitioner to the orders passed by this Court. He would further submit that if for any reason this Court feels that

the condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is onerous, it can suitably be modified without affecting the rights of the de-facto

complainant.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by both parties and the contents of the report received from the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Tirumangalam in respect of the subsequent remand if any ordered by him against the petitioner after 16.03.2009, as the ninety days period was

over by then. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam had submitted in the report that the petitioner''s remand was not extended by him

from 20.02.2009 and remand extension were done as per the direction given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai through video

conferencing.

Under these circumstances, we have to consider whether the ingredients of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was complied with by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Tirumangalam. According to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, the power of the Magistrate to extend the remand after the statutory period of

ninety days, has been taken away and the Magistrate cannot remand the said accused when the judicial custody had exceeded ninety days and the

investigation was not completed by the police.

Admittedly, in this case, ninety days time was over and no charge sheet has been filed and the petition was filed by the petitioner seeking bail u/s

167(2) Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam has to consider the bail application by imposing usual

conditions. But, he had imposed the condition as discussed supra. Admittedly, the conditions imposed against the petitioner are onerous and it

need not be imposed when the Court was dealing with the right of the accused flown out of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

On a perusal of the earlier order passed by this Court it would show that this Court had directed the petitioner to pay only a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs

to the de-facto complainant, but he did not comply with the order and he could pay a sum of Rs. 1,77,400/-(Rupees One Lakh Seventy Seven

Thousand and Four Hundred Only) and it was also admitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). Now the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner agrees to pay the balance amount i.e., Rs. 22,600/-(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand and Six Hundred Only) to the de-

facto complainant in lieu of the condition imposed against the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam.

Considering these submissions made by both sides, this Court feels that it is justifiable to modify the condition imposed against the petitioner.

Accordingly, the condition imposed in Crl.M.P.1475 of 2009 dated 16.03.2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam are modified to

the effect that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 22,600/-(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand and Two Hundred Only) to the de-facto complainant

in lieu of the conditions imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam and the petitioner is also directed to execute a bond for a sum of

Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Tirumangalam and he has to appear before the respondent police as and when required.

The petitioner is directed to produce the receipt for the payment of Rs. 22,600/-(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand and Six Hundred) made by

him to the de-facto complainant at the time of furnishing sureties before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam.

With the above said modifications this Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.