ORDER

V.G. ARUN, J. –

Petitioner is the accused in crime No.378 of 2025 registered at the Mannuthy Police Station for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The petitioner was granted bail in that crime as per Annexure-2 order dated 21.06.2025, subject to conditions. This Crl.M.C is filed aggrieved by the first condition in Annexure-2, requiring the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The other objectionable condition is the insistence that one of the sureties should be a close relative of the petitioner, and one surety should produce his title deed in original before the court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though the conditions are unjustified and onerous, the petitioner was compelled to comply with the conditions, as otherwise she would have to languish in jail, despite being granted bail. Referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court, it is contended that conditions which have the effect of denying bail should not have been imposed. It is submitted that the surety, who produced the title deed is the petitioner’s mother-in-law and the document has not been returned.

2. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

3. The condition requiring one of the sureties to be a close relative cannot be sustained as there cannot be any geographical discrimination in the matter of bail. When the sureties are directed to produce the original document, after ascertaining the solvency of the surety, the original document should be returned, if necessary, by substituting it with a certified copy.

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C is disposed of with the following directions;

i) The condition requiring one among the sureties to be a close relative is deleted.

ii) The court below is directed to return the original document produced by the surety on production of a certified copy.

Order accordingly.

********