Judgment : 1. A case in Crime No. 3 of 2007 came to be registered on the basis of the complaint given by one K. Ravichandran against the petitioner herein for the alleged offences under Sections 403, 408, Sections 403, 463, 468, 471 and477 (A) of I.P.C. for the alleged misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 30,10,000/- said to have been committed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed Crl. O.P. No. 14799 of 2007 seeking anticipatory bail and a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 12.06.2007 granted anticipatory bail on the following conditions. “The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and depositing a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) and further depositing of title deeds to the value of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) which stands in the name of the petitioner or a third party to the satisfaction of the Magistrate”. 3. Expressing his inability to comply with the said condition, the petitioner field M.P. No. 2 of 2007 seeking modification of the conditions. But the said petition was dismissed by the learned Judge by order dated 9.8.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Hosur on 12.9.2007 and sought for bail. 4. By order dated 31.10.2007 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 6333 of 2007, the learned Magistrate enlarged the petitioner on bail on the condition of his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for the like sum with a further condition that (i) the petitioner shall deposit a cash surety of Rs.10,00,000/-; (ii) title deeds to the value of Rs. 20,00,000/- either in the name of the petitioner or in the name of a third party to be produced and (iii) the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police station daily at 5.00 p.m. until further orders. 5. Being aggrieved by the said condition imposed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has field the above criminal original petition seeking modification of the conditions. 6. The de facto complainant has filed M.P. No. 1 of 2007 seeking permission to intervene and put forth his objections. 7. Heard Mr. Shanmuga Velayutham, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate (Crl. 6. The de facto complainant has filed M.P. No. 1 of 2007 seeking permission to intervene and put forth his objections. 7. Heard Mr. Shanmuga Velayutham, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing on behalf of the respondent and Mr.. K. Govi Ganesan appearing for the de facto complaint/Intervenor. 8. The learned senor counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by relying upon the following decisions, viz. (i) 1985 Crl. L.J. 1857 equivalent to, AIR 1985 SC 1666 ; (ii), AIR 2000 SC 714 :, (2000) 2 SCC 66 :, 2000 SCC (Cri) 316 (iii), (2005) SCC (Cri) 1586 submitted that the condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate are onerous and as such the said conditions are liable to be modified. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that because of the onerous conditions imposed by this Court, while granting anticipatory bail, the petitioner was unable to comply with the said condition and he did not avail the benefit of the said order and only because of his inability to deposit the said amount, he surrendered before the Court below and sought for bail. Learned Magistrate, without considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in similar matters has mechanically imposed such condition making it impossible for the petitioner to comply with the same. 9. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the inability of a person, to deposit money, cannot be a reason for his continued incarceration in jail. However, on instructions, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit the original title deed viz. Document No. 2122 of 2007 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Hosur in respect of the property in Plot No. 14-A Survey No. 5.3 Agraharam Village, admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. within Mukunda Palli Gram Panchayat, Hosur with the Court below. 10. Countering the said submission K. Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the de facto complainant / intervenor would submit that the petitioner was employed as a collecting agent with the de facto complainant, had forged bank challans and misappropriated a huge amount of Rs.30 lakhs; he has purchased various properties in his name, in the name of his mother, sister and other close relatives and he is capable of complying with the conditions imposed by the Court below. Learned counsel further submitted that before the learned Judge of this Court, when the petition for anticipatory bail came up, the petitioner volunteered to deposit property security. He further submitted only considering such submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Judge granted anticipatory bail imposing such conditions. 11. Learned counsel for the de fecto complainant further submitted that the petitioner field M.P. No. 2 of 2007 in Crl. O.P.No. 14799 of 2007 seeking modification of the conditions imposed by the learned Judge while granting anticipatory bail and in that petition also, the petitioner has submitted, he is willing to deposit Rs.10,00,000/-He also submitted that only considering such fact, the learned Magistrate has imposed the above condition while granting bail. According to him, considering the fact that the petitioner has committed misappropriation of a huge amount of Rs. 30 lakhs the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate could not be considered to be onerous. 12. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 13. In the three decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel, the Apex Court has categorically laid down that a person cannot be in continuous incarceration due to his inability to pay the huge amount directed to be deposited as a condition precedent for coming out on bail. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel, the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate are onerous and impossible of compliance. The fact that the petitioner had surrendered before the learned Magistrate without enjoying the benefit of anticipatory bail granted by the learned Judge itself shows that the petitioner was unable to comply with such onerous conditions and therefore, the learned Magistrate could have imposed such conditions as are capable of being complied with by the petitioner. 14. Since this Court is of the considered view that the conditions imposed are onerous, this Court is inclined to modify the conditions. It is no doubt true that the petitioner as a collecting agent is alleged to have committed criminal breach of trust and is said to have misappropriated a huge amount of Rs. 30 lakhs, but that is a matter for trial. It is no doubt true that the petitioner as a collecting agent is alleged to have committed criminal breach of trust and is said to have misappropriated a huge amount of Rs. 30 lakhs, but that is a matter for trial. The contention of the learned counsel for the de fecto complainant / intervenor that the petitioner using the misappropriated amount has purchased various properties in the name of his close relatives and hence he is capable of complying with the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate is concerned, this Court cannot go into all those disputed questions of fact at this stage. 15. Considering the fact that the learned Senior Counsel, on instructions by the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is willing to deposit the original title deed bearing Document No. 2122 of 2007 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Hosur in respect of the property in Plot No. 14-A Survey No. 5/3 Agraharam Village, admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. within Mukunda Palli Gram Panchayat, Hosur with the Court below, this Court is inclined to modify the conditions in the following lines: “(i) the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties each for the like sum and such sureties shall produce solvency certificates from the Thasildar; (ii) the petitioner shall deposit original title deed bearing Document No. 2122 of 2007 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Hosur pertaining to the property in Plot No.14-A Survey No. 5/3 Agraharam Village, admeasuring 1200 sq. ft., within Mukunda Palli Gram Panchayat, Hosur and (iii) the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 5.00 p.m. until further orders.” 16. With the above modification this petition is disposed or.