Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(m). In Maha Ahmad Yusuf v. State of U.P., 2015 (5) R.C.R.(Criminal) 13, Allahabad High Court observed, [6].....The cash deposit is equally efficacious as other system in view of Section 445 Cr.P.C.

(n). In Sakthivel v. The State, Crl.O.P.No.835 of 2015, Madras High Court observed, [15]. Either under Section 438, or under Section 437, 439 of Cr.P.C., it is not that the Courts have no power to impose such bail condition. But the condition should not be imposed for the sake of imposing condition. It must have some objective. It must be reasonable. It should not be oppressive in nature. It should be performable, executable. In imposing condition, the Court must take into account the individual's position, financial capacity and his role in the case.

(o). In Navaneetha Krishnan v. State, (2) MadWN (Cri) 53, Madras High Court observed, [17]. While granting bail, the Court can direct the accused to execute bail bond. As per Section 440 Cr.P.C., 1973 the bond amount should not be excessive. When a person so directed to execute the bond either with surety or without surety is not able to furnish the sureties, then under Section 445 Cr.P.C., 1973 he has the option to offer cash security. But even then, it must be a reasonable amount. It should not be an arbitrary, excessive amount. It should not be in the nature of deprivation of grant of bail by fixing a heavy amount as surety amount. If heavy amount is directed to be deposited as cash security, the bailee/accused will not be in a position to comply it. If heavy amount is demanded from the surety, then the bailor will not be 10 of 16 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:074430 CRM-M-23610-2023 Wan v. Chandigarh forthcoming. And 'haves' will go out, while 'have nots' will remain in jail.

(r). In Ubaidulla v. State of Kerala, [2020:KER:27721, PARA 5], (Crl. MC. No. 3400 of 2020, decided on 5-8-2020), Kerala High Court observed, (5).I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The very purpose of Section 445 Cr.P.C,, 1973 providing for deposit instead of recognizance, is to ensure that a person is not denied an opportunity to be enlarged on bail merely for the reason that he is unable to execute bond, with or without sureties. Section 445 Cr.P.C , 1973 provides for deposit of a sum of money or Government Promissory Note to such amount as the Court may fix in lieu of executing the bond.

21. Section 445 CrPC mandates an accused to execute bonds by officers and Courts, with or without sureties. An officer directs an accused to execute bonds only when the Court issues Bailable Warrants or when such officer arrests an accused in a bailable offence, or arrests in a non-bailable offence and when such an accused is armed with an order of anticipatory bail. Section 445 CrPC further provides that the court or such officer may permit the accused to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory notes of such amount, instead of executing such bond. Thus, for S. 445 CrPC, the Legislature does not distinguish Officers from Courts.Further, even the legislature had made fleeing from justice a penal offense under section 174-A of IPC.