Judgment :- This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking for the quashment of the condition imposed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti in Cr.M.P.No.1189 of 2008 in Crime No.111 of 2007 dated 20.03.2008 directing the sureties to be verified by the Probation Officer as illegal. 2. The gist of the allegations made in the petition are as follows: (i) The petitioners have been charged for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 332, 307 I.P.C. read with Section 3,25(1-B), 27 of Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3,4,5 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 17(1)(a) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 in Crime No.111 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police. The petitioners were arrested on 19.12.2007 and remanded to judicial custody on 20.12.2007. Subsequently, they were detained under the National Security Act as per the order of the District Collector, Theni District. Since the charge sheet has not been filed within the stipulated time of ninety days, the petitioners applied for bail under Section 167 (2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti had granted bail, on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum and also to appear before the respondent police on everyday morning by 10.00 a.m. until further orders. (ii) The learned Magistrate has further directed that the petitioners shall be released only after the verification of the Probation Officer as to the conduct of the persons, who offer themselves as sureties. The aforesaid condition of verifying the sureties by the Probation Officer is amounting to an enquiry regarding the sufficiency and fitness of the sureties to be conducted by the Magistrate as per Section 441(4) Cr.P.C. This Court recently settled down this matter relying the Hon'ble Apex Court orders by concluding that "no court including a Magistrate has any power to order an enquiry to be held by Probation Officer with reference to the fitness or sufficiency of the sureties. Hence, the direction of the learned Magistrate is against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Therefore the said conditions should have been quashed. 3. Heard Mr.A.Jayaramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State. 4. Hence, the direction of the learned Magistrate is against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Therefore the said conditions should have been quashed. 3. Heard Mr.A.Jayaramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioners were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 332, 307 I.P.C. read with Section 3,25(1-B), 27 of Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3,4,5 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 17 (1)(a) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 in Crime No.111 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police and since the charge sheet has not been filed within the stipulated time of ninety days, the petitioners applied for bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti had granted bail, but with onerous conditions. 5. He would further submit in his argument that the condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum and also to appear before the respondent police on everyday morning by 10.00 a.m. until further orders are in order, but the condition to verify the sureties after obtaining a report from the Probation Officer concerned is quite contrary to the provisions of law and the Judgment of this Court and therefore the said condition should have been quashed and the petitioners be permitted to furnish sureties of their choice to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate as per law. 6. He would further submit in his argument that the aforesaid condition of verifying the sureties by the Probation Officer is amounting to an enquiry regarding the sufficiency and fitness of the sureties to be conducted only by the Magistrate concerned as per Section 441(4) Cr.P.C. He would also submit in his argument that this Court on an earlier occasion, had categorically held that the Probation Officer has no power to hold such an enquiry regarding the sufficiency and fitness of the sureties concerned as per the Judgment made in Anbarasan v. State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mathur, Pudukkottai District reported in 2008(3) CTC 769. He would also submit that the petitioners are ready to abide to the remaining conditions as envisaged under law, regarding the grant of bail. 7. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mathur, Pudukkottai District reported in 2008(3) CTC 769. He would also submit that the petitioners are ready to abide to the remaining conditions as envisaged under law, regarding the grant of bail. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit in his argument that no doubt the enquiry regarding the sufficiency or the fitness of the sureties shall be done by the Magistrate concerned or it can be relegated to a Magistrate subordinate to the said Magistrate, but not by a Probation officer. He would also submit in his argument that the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti had passed an order requiring the sureties to be certified by the Probation Officer concerned and the said condition was imposed only for the purpose of ascertaining the genuineness of the sureties and it would not amount to an enquiry. However, he would submit that the enquiry regarding the sufficiency and the fitness of the sureties would emanate only at the time when the accepting Magistrate is not convinced regarding the sufficiency or the fitness of the sureties. He would also submit that while such enquiry is conducted by the said Magistrate, he can gather particulars, from any person including the Probation officer, as evidence for the said enquiry. Therefore, he would request the Court to pass suitable orders in the circumstances of the case. 8. I have given anxious thoughts to the submissions made by both sides. The only point for consideration is as to whether the Probation Officer could be engaged for the purpose of ascertaining the genuineness of the sureties even at the time of granting of bail. The Judgment of this Court in Anbarasan v. State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mathur, Pudukkottai District reported in 2008(3) CTC 769 would run as follows: "... Thus, going by the plain reading of these two provisions, I have no difficulty in holding that the Probation Officer cannot be directed by any Criminal Court including Judicial Magistrates to enquire into the fitness or sufficiency of a surety and to submit a report to him". 9. In the said Judgment, this Court had held that the Probation Officer cannot be directed by any Criminal Court to enquire into the fitness and sufficiency of the sureties and to submit a report to him. 9. In the said Judgment, this Court had held that the Probation Officer cannot be directed by any Criminal Court to enquire into the fitness and sufficiency of the sureties and to submit a report to him. As per Section 441(4) Cr.P.C., the Court may accept the affidavits submitted by the sureties towards the fitness and sufficiency and if it considers necessary regarding the sufficiency and fitness of the sureties, it may hold an enquiry itself or cause an enquiry to be made by a Magistrate subordinate to the said Court. Therefore, the enquiry regarding sufficiency or the fitness of the sureties, would arise only after the Court before whom, the sureties have submitted their affidavits for acceptance and the Court does not accept them and considers that an enquiry as to sufficiency or fitness of the sureties is necessary. Therefore, the condition imposed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti in the aforesaid statutory bail order passed under Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. to the petitioners, relegating the enquiry to be conducted under Section 441(4) Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate to the Probation Officer, is not sustainable. The said condition imposed, would also amount to putting the carts before the horse. Accordingly, the condition stipulated by the learned Magistrate is not found to be in accordance with law. Therefore, the condition imposed by the said Magistrate in Cr.M.P.No.1189 of 2008 directing the Probation Officer to submit the report about the sureties is found to be illegal and therefore the said condition alone is quashed. The said quashment will not preclude the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti to go for an enquiry under Section 441(4) Cr.P.C. if he is not satisfied with the sufficiency and fitness of the sureties through affidavits. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed.