Judgment : Per K.N. BASHA, J.. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted bail by the learned Special Judge under T.N.P.I.D. Act, 1997 on 5.9.2006 in Cr. M.P. Nos. 2960 and 2961 of 2006 respectively for an offence under Section 5 of T.N.P.I.D. Act, 1997. Learned counsel further submits that while granting bail to the petitioner, the learned Special Judge, imposed a condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in each case into Court (Out of Rs.2,00,000/- in each case, Rs.50,000/- in each case at the time of execution of bail bond and the balance of Rs.1,50,000/- in each case shall be paid in five monthly instalments @ Rs.30,000/- in each case). The first such instalment shall be paid within thirty days from the date of release from custody. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the condition imposed by the Special Judge is too onerous and further it causes serious prejudice to the petitioner in respect of his defence in the Trial. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that condition has to be deleted. 2. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the following decisions: (i) Geetha and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu 2006(2) SCC (Crl) 327 () (ii)Shyam Singh v. State 2006(2) SCC (Crl) 613 () (iii) Sheikh Ayub v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2006(1) SCC (Crl) 336 () (iv) Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Others 2006(6) SCC 196 () 3. Heard learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on the above submissions. 4. The perusal of the impugned orders passed by the learned Special Judge, T.N.P.I.D. Act Cases, shows that the Special Judge opted to impose a condition to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in each case and out of Rs.2,00,000/- in each case, Rs.50,000/- in each case is directed to be deposited at the time of release from the custody and the balance amount has to be in 5 monthly instalments at Rs.30,000/- in each case. It is well settled in a catena of decisions by the Supreme Court of India that while exercising the discretion to impose condition, at the time of granting bail, such condition should be exercised judiciously and also the Court should impose the condition enabling the concerned petitioner to able to comply with the condition and therefore, I am of the considered view that the condition viz., the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in each case, is not only would cause serious prejudice to the defence of the petitioner but also such condition is onerous one and as such that condition is necessarily to be deleted. It is also relevant to consider that in the event of the accused getting acquittal after the full-fledged trial, the condition imposed on the accused to deposit a huge amount would cause irreparable hardship. 5. The Honble Supreme Court has held in U. Palaniappan and Another v. Sub-Inspector of Police reported in 2005 (10) SCC 464 as follows: “On the facts and circumstances of this case, the condition imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail that the first appellant should deposit Rs.10 lakhs and the second appellant should deposit Rs.5 lakhs before getting the benefit of anticipatory bail in our opinion is onerous. Hence, in modification of the said order while affirming the grant of anticipatory bail, we direct the appellants to furnish a self-bond of Rs.50,000/- each and one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court or the arresting authority as the case may be.” 6. In yet another decision, the Apex Court has held in Amarjith Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2002) MLJ (Crl) 505 (S.C.): 2002 (2) CTC 63 as follows: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the imposition of condition to deposit the sum of Rs.15 lakhs in the form of for in the trial Court is an unreasonable condition and, therefore, we set aside the said condition as a condition precedent for granting anticipatory bail to the accused/appellant. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the condition imposed by the learned additional sessions judge to deposit the sum of Rs.15 lakhs in the form of for in the trial Court, and on the other hand direct that on executing a bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate…..” 7. As per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Geetha and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (2) SCC (Cri) 327, the Honble Supreme Court of India has held as follows: “ 4. The High Court, by its impugned order, has directed the release of the appellants on bail imposing certain conditions including the condition that the appellants shall pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant in accordance with the time schedule fixed by the Court. 5. Counsel for the appellants submits that such conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail because the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the case of the respondent-complainant is true. It is brought to our notice by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the Court was led to pass the aforesaid order on the basis of certain averments made by the appellants in their affidavit filed before the Court. 6. Rather than going into these questions, we set aside the order of the High Court and direct the High Court to consider the matter afresh for grant of bail to the appellants. It may pass such order as it may think proper in the facts and circumstances of the case but shall not impose a condition for payment of Rs.5 lakhs as imposed under the order impugned.” 8. In yet another decision, the Apex Court in Shyam Singh v. State reported in 2006 (2) SCC (Cri) 613 has held as follows: “3.We are of the view that the condition imposed by the High Court that the appellant shall make payment of Rs. one lakh per month after his release on bail is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is of course, open to a Court to grant or refuse bail, but to assume that an offence has been committed even at the stage of granting bail and to direct repayment of any amount is both onerous and unwarranted. It is of course, open to a Court to grant or refuse bail, but to assume that an offence has been committed even at the stage of granting bail and to direct repayment of any amount is both onerous and unwarranted. In the instant case, the liability of the appellant has yet to be determined in an appropriate proceeding. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the High Court was justified in granting bail to the appellant but we do not uphold the condition imposed in the order granting bail that he should continue to deposit a sum of Rs. One lakh per month. That condition is deleted.” 9. In yet another decision, the Apex Court in Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2006 (6) SCC 196 has held as follows: “3.As a condition for grant of anticipatory bail, the High Court has recorded the undertaking of the petitioners to pay to the victim daughter-in-law a sum of Rs.2,000 per month and failure to do so would result in vacation of the order granting bail. We notice that the applicants understand how they can be made liable to deposit Rs.2,000 per month for the maintenance of the victim. Moreover, while deciding a bail application, it is not the jurisdiction of the Court to decide civil disputes as between the parties. We, therefore, remit the matte to the High Court to consider the bail application afresh on merit and to pass an appropriate order without imposing any condition of the nature imposed by the impugned order.” 10. Therefore, for the reasons stated above and also in view of the settled position of law laid down by the Apex Court, the condition imposed by the learned Special Judge, T.N.P.I.D. Act Cases in Cr. M.P. Nos. 2961 and 2960 of 2006 respectively dated 5.9.2006 that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in each case, is deleted.