Judgment : 1. The petitioner is seeking for modification of an order dated 20.8.1996 passed by the Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I. Madras ordering the petitioner to furnish a bond for Rs. 3 cores and also with cash security for the same amount with two sureties of like sum each or cash security for each one of the sureties for the said amount. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate are impossible for compliance and the petitioner does not have the wherewithal to furnish cash deposit or even to find sureties to the above amount. The petitioner further submitted that the conditions attached to the bail order amounts to denial of bail and per se unreasonable. 3. The respondent submitted that the conditions so imposed are purely the discretion of the Court and that the learned Magistrate has considered the extent of seriousness and cumulative effect of the case and has fixed the quantum. It is also contended on behalf of respondent that a case of economic offence involving contravention to the extent of several crores of rupees affecting the economy of the Nation, the conditions should be in commensurate with the extent of contravention and a lenient view should not be taken. It is further urged that since the petitioner herself had agreed to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed for her release on bail she is not entitled to resist the conditions imposed. 4. The point for consideration is whether the Magistrate can insist for cash security as a condition precedent to release a person on bail. 5. Section 440 of the new Code corresponds to Section 498 of the 1898 Code. Section 495 reproduces word for word Section 513 of 1898 Code without any change. Section 441 of the new Code which corresponds to Section 499 of the old Code also contemplates taking of a personal bound from the accused person and a bond by one or more sureties. Section 445 states that when any person is required by any court or officers to execute a bond, with or without sureties, such Court or Officer, may, except in the case of a bond for good behaviour, permit him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory notes to such amount as the Court or officer may fix, in lieu of executing such bond. The Section makes it clear that Magistrate is not bound to accept cash but may permit an accused person to deposit a sum of money in lieu of executing a personal bond and giving surety of some persons. A similar question was considered in a decision of the Allahabad High Court in R.R.Chari v. Emperor, AIR 1948 All. 238 wherein the Allahabad High Court held that the magistrate is not bound to accept cash but may permit an accused to deposit a sum of money in lieu of executing the personal bond and giving surety of some persons. The Court held that the Section however does not authorise a demand of cash by a Magistrate. In State of Mysore v. Venkatarama Kotaiyah, 1968 C.L.J. 696 Karnataka High Court held that if the accused wants to deposit any sum of money, it is open to the Court to accept the same in lieu of executing a bond but the law does not empower the Court to insist on cash deposit to be made by the accused. Even in Rajballan Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Pat. 375 the Patna High Court had held that law does not contemplate or authorise Magistrate to demand cash deposit as a condition to release an accused on bail. The decision of the Patna High Court was followed by the Nagpur High Court in Naiamat Khan v. The Crown, AIR 1951 Nag. 206. InMotiram v. State ofM.P., AIR 1978 SC 1594 at paragraph 29 at page 1600, bearing in mind the need for liberal interpretation in areas of social justice, individual freedom and inidgents rights, the Supreme court held that bail covers both release on ones own bond, with or without sureties. When sureties should be demanded and what sum should be insisted upon are dependent on variables. In Keshab Narayan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1985 SC 1666 the Supreme Court held that the condition to furnish cash security with sureties for the like sum appears to be excessively onerous and such conditions may amount to denial of bail itself and directed for enlargement on bail on furnishing a bond with sureties for a like sum. In Keshab Narayan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1985 SC 1666 the Supreme Court held that the condition to furnish cash security with sureties for the like sum appears to be excessively onerous and such conditions may amount to denial of bail itself and directed for enlargement on bail on furnishing a bond with sureties for a like sum. In Hussainra Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1980 (1) SCC 81 the Supreme Court observed that even while releasing the accused on personal bond, it is necessary to caution the court that the amount of the bond which it fixes should not be based merely on the nature of the charge, that the decision as regards the amount of the bond should be an individualised decision depending on the individual financial circumstances of the accused and the prohibility of his absconding that the amount of the bond should be determined having regard to these relevant factors and should not be fixed mechanically. The Supreme Court further held that when the accused is released on his personal bond it would be very harsh and oppressive if he is required to satisfy the Court that he is solvent and the inuiry into the solvency of the accused can become a source of great harassment to him and often result in denial of bail and deprivation of liberty and should not therefore be insisted upon as a condition of acceptance of the personal bond. 6. This Section provides for concession to an accused person who is unable to produce sureties. It is intended to help an accused where he is a stranger to the place and is unable to find sureties. It is a discretionary power which comes into play after an order to execute a bond has been made; the Court has no power to order deposit of cash, in the first instance. The cash deposit is discretionary and cannot be demanded. If the petitioner has voluntarily agreed to abide by any condition, even then, the quantum should not be mechanically fixed according to the nature of the charge, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoons case, 1980 (1) SCC 81 . That amount should be reasonable and should not be onerous. 7. In the case of another accused, namely, Baskaran, the Court imposed the condition to deposit Rs. That amount should be reasonable and should not be onerous. 7. In the case of another accused, namely, Baskaran, the Court imposed the condition to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs while releasing him on bail and later on, even that amount also was returned. In another case, involving contravention in crores of rupees, bail was ordered on deposit of Rs. 50,000. While determining the quantum to insure presence, though gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration to make the accused to feel rigor of the contravention still such quantum should not be mechanically or arbitrarily fixed. When the law does not contemplate cash security insisting Rs. 3 Crores appears to be onerous and unreasonable and also mechanically fixed and that it would amount to an abuse of the discretion vested in the Magistrate. In the result, I hold that Section 440 or 441 or 445 does not empower the Magistrate to demand a cash security, but may permit an accused person to deposit a sum of money in lieu of executing a personal bond and giving surety of some persons. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate ordering compulsive bail are modified as follows: 1. The petitioner should furnish the present residential and her official address to the respondent. 2. The petitioner should appear before the respondent daily on all working days at 10-30 A.M. and variation in timings is left to the discretion of the Respondent according to their pressure of work, until further orders by the jurisdictional Court. 3. The petitioner shall not leave the metropolitan area, Madras City or India without prior permission of the court. 4. The petitioner shall surrender her passport to the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I., Madras. 5. The petitioner shall not tamper with or hamper the investigation and directed to Cooperate with the investigation as and when required. 6. Regarding the quantum of cash security, petitioner directed to furnish a bond for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs with two sureties for alike sum instead of cash as ordered by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I. Madras. 9. The order of the learned Magistrate touching terms in a bail conditions alone is modified as aforesaid. Petition is ordered accordingly.