ORDER : N. Anand Venkatesh, J. The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.11.2018, for an offence u/s. 120(B), 406, 420 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, in Crime No. 3 of 2018, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner's husband named Jagadeeswaran was involved in construction business and was also running Finance Business in the name of various firms. He used to collect money from the general public by assuring that he will construct and hand over the houses. However, the accused persons failed to keep up the promise. By utilising the various amounts collected from the public, the accused persons purchased various movable and immovable properties in their names. There are totally 10 accused persons in this case and A1 to A6 are the various firms run by the accused persons, A7 is the husband of this petitioner, who had collected the deposits and purchased the movable and immovable properties and this petitioner is added as A10 on the ground that she was also involved in the entire transaction. 3. The accused person had collected from nearly 65 depositors, a sum of Rs. 2,71,90,350/-. The husband of the petitioner who was arrested, was initially granted bail and thereafter the bail was cancelled by an order dated 14.11.2018. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 02.11.2018, and she filed a bail petition before the Special Court and the Special Court, by an order dated 08.11.2018, granted bail to the petitioner by imposing certain conditions. One of the condition that was imposed was that the petitioner has to deposit an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs as cash security. This order came to be challenged before this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 26138 of 2018, and this Court dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the condition imposed by the Court below. This order was further confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) 00416/2019. As a result of same, in spite of the bail granted to the petitioner, the petitioner was not able to come out on bail due to non compliance of the condition imposed against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than 104 days. As a result of same, in spite of the bail granted to the petitioner, the petitioner was not able to come out on bail due to non compliance of the condition imposed against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than 104 days. Since no Final Report was filed within the statutory period, the petitioner filed a bail petition seeking for Statutory Bail u/s. 167(2) of Cr.P.C in Cr. No. 3 of 2018. The said petition came to be dismissed by the Court below by an order dated 04.02.2019. Therefore, the present petition has been filed before this Court seeking for Bail. 6. There are two issues which has arisen for consideration before this Court in the present bail petition; (i) Where bail has already been granted to the accused person by imposing certain conditions and in view of the non compliance of the condition, the accused was not able to come out of the jail and in the meantime, the investigation is not completed and Final Report is not filed within the statutory period, whether the petitioner can independently invoke the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and seek for Statutory Bail? (ii) Whether any condition for cash security can be imposed at the time of granting Statutory Bail to the extent that the accused person will not be able to comply with the condition and thereby, cannot come out on bail and which will indirectly deny the statutory right given to the accused person? 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the expiry of 60 days, in this case, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail and the Court below will not even have the power to authorise detention beyond 60 days. The learned counsel also submitted that onerous condition cannot be imposed against the petitioner while considering the Statutory Bail, since it will defeat the very right itself, in view of the fact that the accused person cannot comply with that condition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments in order to substantiate his submissions: 1. Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 5 SCC 453 2. Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel & Another Vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi reported in (1989) 3 SCC 352 3. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments in order to substantiate his submissions: 1. Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 5 SCC 453 2. Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel & Another Vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi reported in (1989) 3 SCC 352 3. Shri Ram Singh Batra Vs. The State reported in 2005 SCC Online Del 275 4. Achpal @ Ramswaroop & Another. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1638 5. P.L. Jayaraj Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-1, Chennai reported in 2019 (1) MWN (Cr.) 31 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is true that the accused person gets an indefeasible right on the expiry of 60 days, to be considered for Statutory Bail. However, the Court can always impose condition and if the same is not complied with, the continued detention cannot be said to be unauthorised and what the petitioner was not able to achieve in the earlier round, cannot be indirectly achieved by taking umbrage under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. 10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side. This Court will first consider the various judgments that have been relied upon in this case, and thereafter proceed to decide the points for consideration referred supra. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments and the relevant paragraphs of the judgments are extracted hereunder: 1. Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 5 SCC 453 . we would record our conclusions as follows: 1. Under sub-section (2) of Section 167, a Magistrate before whom an accused is produced while the police is investigating into the offence can authorise detention of the accused in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days on the whole. 2. Under the proviso to the aforesaid subsection (2) of Section 167, the Magistrate may authorise detention of the accused otherwise than in the custody of police for a total period not exceeding 90 days where the investigation relates to offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. 3. 3. On the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail as directed by the Magistrate. 4. When an application for bail is filed by an accused for enforcement of his indefeasible right alleged to have been accrued in his favour on account of default on the part of the investigating agency in completion of the investigation within the specified period, the Magistrate/court must dispose of it forthwith, on being satisfied that in fact the accused has been in custody for the period of 90 days or 60 days, as specified and no charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating agency. Such prompt action on the part of the Magistrate/court will not enable the prosecution to frustrate the object of the Act and the legislative mandate of an accused being released on bail on account of the default on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation within the period stipulated. 5. If the accused is unable to furnish the bail as directed by the Magistrate, then on a conjoint reading of Explanation I and the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167, the continued custody of the accused even beyond the specified period in para (a) will not be unauthorised, and therefore, if during that period the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed then the so-called indefeasible right of the accused would stand extinguished. 6. The expression "if not already availed of used by this Court in Sanjay Dutt case [ (1994) 5 SCC 410 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1433] must be understood to mean when the accused files an application and is prepared to offer bail on being directed. 6. The expression "if not already availed of used by this Court in Sanjay Dutt case [ (1994) 5 SCC 410 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1433] must be understood to mean when the accused files an application and is prepared to offer bail on being directed. In other words, on expiry of the period specified in para (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 if the accused files an application for bail and offers also to furnish the bail on being directed, then it has to be held that the accused has availed of his indefeasible right even though the court has not considered the said application and has not indicated the terms and conditions of bail, and the accused has not furnished the same". 2. Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel & Another Vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi reported in (1989) 3 SCC 352. "It is not disputed and indeed cannot be disputed that when an accused is granted bail, whether under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) or under the general provisions of Chapter XXXIII, the only method by which the bail may be cancelled is to proceed under Section 437(5) or Section 439(2). That is because the person released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Code. Sub-section (5) of Section 437 provides: "Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody." Sub-section (2) of Section 439 provides: "A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody." Under sub-section (5) of Section 437, the Court if it considers it necessary, direct that the person on bail be arrested and committed to custody. The bail may be cancelled by the Court if it comes to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary that he should be arrested and committed to custody. This is what this Court observed in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, [1986] 3 SCR 802. The bail may be cancelled by the Court if it comes to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary that he should be arrested and committed to custody. This is what this Court observed in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, [1986] 3 SCR 802. It was said (at 826): "Where bail has been granted under the proviso to section 167(2) for the default of the prosecution in not completing the investigation in sixty days, after the defect is cured by the filing of a charge-sheet, the prosecution may seek to have the bail cancelled on the ground that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest him and commit him to custody. In the last mentioned case, one would expect very strong grounds indeed." And said: "The order for release on bail was not an order on merits but was what one may call an order-on-default, and order that could be rectified for special reasons after the defect was cured." An order for release on bail under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) may appropriately be termed as an order-on-default. Indeed, it is a release on bail on the default of the prosecution in filing charge-sheet within the prescribed period. The right to bail under Section 167(2) proviso (a) thereto is absolute. It is a legislative command and not Court's discretion. If the investigating agency fails to file charge-sheet before the expiry of 90/60 days, as the case may be, the accused in custody should he released on bail. But at that stage, merits of the case are not to be examined. Not at all. In fact, the Magistrate has no power to remand a person beyond the stipulated period of 90/60 days. He must pass an order of bail and communicate the same to the accused to -furnish the requisite bail bonds". 3. Shri Ram Singh Batra Vs. The State reported in 2005 SCC Online Del 275 "......While Section 439 empowers the High Court and the Sessions Court to grant or refuse bail, those powers are discretionary powers. Section 167(2) does not allow for any discretion. 3. Shri Ram Singh Batra Vs. The State reported in 2005 SCC Online Del 275 "......While Section 439 empowers the High Court and the Sessions Court to grant or refuse bail, those powers are discretionary powers. Section 167(2) does not allow for any discretion. This is a mandatory provision and whether bail has been granted or rejected under Section 439, if a case is made out for releasing the petitioner under Section 167(2), then such person has to be released irrespective of the order passed under Section 439". 4. Achpal @ Ramswaroop & Another. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1638. "16. The letter of and spirit behind enactment of Section 167 of the Code as it stands thus mandates that the investigation ought to be completed within the period prescribed. Ideally, the investigation, going by the provisions of the Code, ought to be completed within first 24 hours itself. Further in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 167, if "it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 57" the concerned officer ought to transmit the entries in the diary relating to the case and at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. Thereafter, it is for the Magistrate to consider whether the accused be remanded to custody or not. Sub-Section (2) then prescribes certain limitations on the exercise of the power of the Magistrate and the proviso stipulates that the Magistrate cannot authorize detention of the accused in custody for total period exceeding 90 or 60 days, as the case may be. It is further stipulated that on the expiry of such period of 90 and 60 days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail, if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. 17. The provision has a definite purpose in that; on the basis of the material relating to investigation, the Magistrate ought to be in a position to proceed with the matter. It is thus clearly indicated that the stage of investigation ought to be confined to 90 or 60 days, as the case may be, and thereafter the issue relating to the custody of the accused ought to be dealt with by the Magistrate on the basis of the investigation. It is thus clearly indicated that the stage of investigation ought to be confined to 90 or 60 days, as the case may be, and thereafter the issue relating to the custody of the accused ought to be dealt with by the Magistrate on the basis of the investigation. Matters and issues relating to liberty and whether the person accused of a charge ought to be confined or not, must be decided by the Magistrate and not by the Police. The further custody of such person ought not to be guided by mere suspicion that he may have committed an offence or for that matter, to facilitate pending investigation. 18. In the present case as on the 90th day, there were no papers or the charge-sheet in terms of Section 173 of the Code for the concerned Magistrate to assess the situation whether on merits the accused was required to be remanded to further custody. Though the charge-sheet in terms of Section 173 came to be filed on 05.07.2018, such filing not being in terms of the order passed by the High Court on 03.07.2018, the papers were returned to the Investigating Officer. Perhaps it would have been better if the Public Prosecutor had informed the High Court on 03.07.2018 itself that the period for completing the investigation was coming to a close. He could also have submitted that the papers relating to investigation be filed within the time prescribed and a call could thereafter be taken by the Superior Gazetted Officer whether the matter required further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code or not. That would have been an ideal situation. But we have to consider the actual effect of the circumstances that got unfolded. The fact of the matter is that as on completion of 90 days of prescribed period under Section 167 of the Code there were no papers of investigation before the concerned Magistrate. The accused were thus denied of protection established by law. The issue of their custody had to be considered on merits by the concerned Magistrate and they could not be simply remanded to custody dehors such consideration. In our considered view the submission advanced by Mr. Dave, learned Advocate therefore has to be accepted. We now turn to the subsidiary issue, namely, whether the High Court could have extended the period. In our considered view the submission advanced by Mr. Dave, learned Advocate therefore has to be accepted. We now turn to the subsidiary issue, namely, whether the High Court could have extended the period. The provisions of the Code do not empower anyone to extend the period within which the investigation must be completed nor does it admit of any such eventuality. There are enactments such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 which clearly contemplate extension of period and to that extent those enactments have modified the provisions of the Code including Section 167. In the absence of any such similar provision empowering the Court to extend the period, no Court could either directly or indirectly extend such period. In any event of the matter all that the High Court had recorded in its order dated 03.07.2018 was the submission that the investigation would be completed within two months by a Gazetted Police Officer. The order does not indicate that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that the period for completing the investigation was coming to an end. Mere recording of submission of the Public Prosecutor could not be taken to be an order granting extension. We thus reject the submissions in that behalf advanced by the learned Counsel for the State and the complainant." 5. P.L. Jayaraj Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-1, Chennai, reported in 2019 (1) MWN (Cr.). "..........From the above, the only condition can be imposed, while granting anticipatory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is that the accused persons shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. Apart from that no other requirement is necessary for grant of Statutory Bail as per Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 6. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the order in the matter of Baskar and others Vs. State and others, Crl.O.P. No. 18056 of 2006 dated 29.09.2000, the following paragraphs: 14. The failure to file charge sheet or final report before the period prescribed under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure will automatically result in releasing the accused on bail subject to only two conditions that there is an application for bail from the person in custody and he must be in a position to offer adequate sureties. The failure to file charge sheet or final report before the period prescribed under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure will automatically result in releasing the accused on bail subject to only two conditions that there is an application for bail from the person in custody and he must be in a position to offer adequate sureties. The bail cannot be denied to him on an other ground less on the ground that on merits the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail. The provision 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure has been introduced in the code with a view to avoid unnecessary detention of persons or the accused in prison under judicial custody. Legislature in its wisdom has thought that the prosecution must be compelled to come out with a final report or charge sheet with expiry of 60 days or 90 days depending upon the gravity of the offence and intended period on punishment and in case the prosecution takes more time than that the legislature wanted to mitigate, the rigor of the remand by making release on bail compulsorily after the expiry of the said period. The rulings made by the Supreme Court has further clarified this position by stating that a person in judicial custody must exercise the option of coming out of bail by making an application on expiry of the period before laying of charge sheet and he cannot come leisurely to the Court after the charge sheet has been filed even though the charge sheet is filed after expiry of the prescribed period in 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. Neither the Legislature nor the Apex Court in any of the ruling have stated that any exemption can be made in such a case where application is filed in accordance with Section 167(2). So once the bail application is filed after expiry of the prescribed period and before challan is filed, the Court has no business to look into the gravity of the crime committed to justify the judicial custody beyond the prescribed period under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. It is not as if the difficulty of prosecution agency in certain cases to file final report within the period because of the voluminous evidence or records or difficulty in gathering evidence in case of complicated matters has been overlooked. 15. It is not as if the difficulty of prosecution agency in certain cases to file final report within the period because of the voluminous evidence or records or difficulty in gathering evidence in case of complicated matters has been overlooked. Neither the Act nor the Apex Court had held that no charge sheet can be laid after expiry of prescribed period. In fact the Supreme Court has pointed out in those rulings that even if the accused has been released on bail by having recourse to 167(2) and the charge sheet is subsequently laid after expiry of the prescribed period the prosecution can ask for cancellation of bail on merits and this cancellation also cannot be automatically given to the prosecution if a petition for that is filed after filing the charge sheet. The Court is not expected to oblige the prosecution by keeping an application filed under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure Pending which has been filed after expiry of the period and giving opportunity to the prosecution to file charge sheet in the meantime and thereafter disposing the application holding that charge sheet has been already filed even though after expiry of the period." Further he relied upon the judgment in me matter of K.S.J. Kumar Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, 2006(2) MWN (Cr.) 414, in which this Court held as follows: "9. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the learned Magistrate mainly proceeded with the case on merits of the case while dismissing the petitioner filed by the petitioner mainly invoking the provision under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate is not at all discussed the right of the petitioner accrued due to the non filing of the charge sheet within 90 days as stipulated. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Nagarajan, etc. & others V. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 545 wherein this Court has held that filing of a defective charge sheet and returning the same of rectify the defect amounts to non-filing of chargesheet and will not defeat the right of the accused to be released on bail after expiry of 90 days. 10. & others V. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 545 wherein this Court has held that filing of a defective charge sheet and returning the same of rectify the defect amounts to non-filing of chargesheet and will not defeat the right of the accused to be released on bail after expiry of 90 days. 10. In the decision cited supra, this Court has taken into consideration of the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in respect of the right of the accused under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, elaborately. In spite of the above said reliance placed before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate simply brushed aside the same with a single line that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the decision rendered by this Court as cited supra. It is very unfortunate that the learned Magistrate has not even considered the submission regarding the non-filing of the charge sheet within the time stipulated and without giving any finding regarding such submission, proceeded mainly on the basis of the merits of the case. 11. The submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) makes its crystal clear that the investigation agency has filed the charge sheet only on 19.09.2006. Earlier submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that the draft charge sheet was filed on 10.07.2006 and the same was returned for corrections, would not amount to filing of a charge sheet as it is rightly held by this Court in the decision cited supra and filing a defective charge sheet and returning the same to rectify the defect amounts to non-filing of charge sheet. 12. It is also relevant to be noted that the petitioner is incarcerated from 18.04.2006 and now the investigation is over and the charge sheet has been filed in the case. As already stated that in view of the non-filing of the charge sheet within the time stip-, the petitioner is having indefeasible right till the charge sheet is filed. This right also exercised by the petitioner within the stipulated time as the petitioner filed a petition for bail on 24.08.2006 after the expiry of 90 days. 13. As already stated that in view of the non-filing of the charge sheet within the time stip-, the petitioner is having indefeasible right till the charge sheet is filed. This right also exercised by the petitioner within the stipulated time as the petitioner filed a petition for bail on 24.08.2006 after the expiry of 90 days. 13. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to release "fee petitioner on statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on condition to reside at Madurai and to report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Madurai once in fifteen days till the date of committal of the case". 7. In the case on hand, admittedly, the charge sheet has not been filed by the respondent police. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. When it being so, the right to be released under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is an indefeasible right and such a right cannot be extinguished by imposition of onerous conditions." 12. A conspectus of the above judgments would clearly show that on the expiry of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused person for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused person is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail as directed by the Magistrate. The right of an accused person to be released on bail after the expiry of the maximum period of detention provided u/s. 167 can be denied only when an accused person does not furnish bail. 13. In other words if an accused person is ready to offer bail, once the stipulated period for the investigation had been completed, then the Magistrate no longer has the authority to extend the period of detention beyond 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be and he has no option except to release the accused on bail. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has now gone to the extent of saying that there is a positive duty on the part of the Magistrate to appraise the accused of his right to avail default bail so as to entitle him to exercise the same. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has now gone to the extent of saying that there is a positive duty on the part of the Magistrate to appraise the accused of his right to avail default bail so as to entitle him to exercise the same. Once an accused person becomes entitled for a Statutory Bail, the Court cannot, impose onerous condition and thereby prevent the accused person from coming out on bail in view of the incapability of the accused to comply with the condition. The gravity of the offence takes a back seat and may not be a relevant consideration while dealing with a petition seeking for Statutory Bail and what is important for the Court is that it should be satisfied that the accused has its roots in the community and is not likely to abscond. Once the Court is satisfied about the same, the Court can release the accused person while imposing reasonable conditions taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The expression "if he is prepared to and does furnish bail" should be read by keeping in mind that bail in its fundamental concept is a security for the prisoners' appearance to answer the charge at a specified time and place. At the time of considering the Statutory Bail, the Court has to keep this fundamental concept in mind and should not be swayed by the gravity of the offence. If the accused person is prepared to and does furnishes bail to the satisfaction of the Court by ensuring his appearance during investigation or at the time of trial, the Court has to necessarily release the accused person on Statutory Bail. 16. Keeping the above principles of law in mind, this Court now proceeds to decide the points for determination taken up in this petition. 17. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, even though the petitioner was granted bail, by considering the merits of the case and by imposing certain conditions, the same was not able to be complied with by the petitioner and as a result of the same the petitioner was not able to come out on bail. The same will not stand in the way of the petitioner to file a fresh bail petition u/s. 167 (2) of Cr.P.C, once the statutory period expires and no final report is filed by the respondent police. The same will not stand in the way of the petitioner to file a fresh bail petition u/s. 167 (2) of Cr.P.C, once the statutory period expires and no final report is filed by the respondent police. The earlier order has worked itself out and the petitioner is now armed with a statutory right to seek bail as a matter of right. The accused person should be released on bail if she is prepared to and does furnish the bail which has been termed by judicial pronouncements to be "compulsive bail" and such bail would be deemed to be a bail under chapter XXXIII. Therefore, the petitioner has every right to invoke the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and seek for Statutory Bail independently. 18. Insofar the second issue is concerned, this Court concurs with the view expressed by this Court in its judgment in P.L. Jayaraj Vs. State referred supra, where in this Court has categorically held that the indefeasible right given u/s. 167(2) cannot be extinguished by imposing any onerous conditions. In this case even though the petitioner was granted bail, she was not able to come out on bail since she was not able to comply with the condition directing her to make a cash deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs. If the very same condition of cash security is to be imposed on the petitioner while considering the Statutory Bail, it will indirectly defeat the indefeasible right of the petitioner and will prevent the petitioner from coming out on bail. The Court below failed to appreciate this fundamental aspect while dismissing the bail petition filed by the petitioner. It is seen from records that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Coimbatore, and all the properties belonging to the petitioner and her family is in and around Coimbatore and this Court is convinced that the petitioner cannot abscond, if the bail is granted by imposing reasonable conditions. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner is entitled to be released on Statutory Bail and the petitioner is also prepared to furnish bail, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner while imposing certain conditions: 20. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Cases, Coimbatore, and on further conditions that:- [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. before the respondent police, until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall attend during every hearing date before the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Cases, Coimbatore without fail, unless her absence is condoned by filing a petition under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.