The court has the discretion to consider an application for modification of bail conditions, even if a previous application was rejected due to the submission of factually incorrect statements.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this application, the Applicant is seeking modification of some conditions imposed by the Sessions Court while granting bail by order dated 20.01.2021.

2. The Applicant seeks modification to the extent that the requirement of executing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, may be reduced to a sum of Rs.10,000/-. It is further submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the condition that out of the two sureties atleast one surety shall have one immovable property within the jurisdiction of the said Court ought to be diluted to delete the condition of the surety having atleast one immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court.

3. The Applicant had earlier approached this Court for such modification by filing CRMAM No.650 of 2021(F), but the said application was disposed of by an order dated 06.10.2021, recording that the Applicant had not approached the Sessions Court which had imposed the conditions while granting bail and that, in the first instance, the Applicant ought to approach the Sessions Court.

4. In pursuance of the same, the Applicant moved the Sessions Court for modification of conditions to bail. In the said application, certain statements were made which did not appear to be factually correct as a result of which the Sessions Court gathered an impression that before approaching this Court by filing the application which was disposed of by aforesaid order dated 06.10.2021, the Applicant had already moved the application for modification of condition of bail before the Sessions Court and that this fact was suppressed from this Court. The reply filed on behalf of the State was also in response to the aforesaid statement made in the application for modification filed before the Sessions Court.

5. As a result, by Order dated 23.12.2021, the Sessions Court rejected the application for modification of conditions of bail, only on the ground that the Applicant had suppressed material facts from this Court. There was no discussion on the modification of conditions as prayed by the Applicant.

6. The Applicant is himself to blame for the aforesaid state of affairs, for the reason that the factually incorrect statement made in the application for modification filed before the Sessions Court, led to the Sessions Court proceeding on the basis that material facts were suppressed from this Court. Therefore, to that extent, no error can be attributed to the Sessions Court for having passed the Order dated 23.12.2021, rejecting the application for modification of conditions of bail. In such a situation, this Court could have set aside the aforesaid Order and asked the Applicant to approach the Sessions Court again. But, since the present application concerns modification of conditions so that the Applicant can enjoy the fruits of the conditional bail Order granted by the Sessions Court, this Court is inclined to consider the prayer for modification made in this application before this Court.

7. A perusal of the application filed before this Court shows that the Applicant is finding it difficult to furnish a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. It is also contended that the condition of atleast one surety having one immovable property in the jurisdiction of the Court is a stringent condition which deserves to be diluted appropriately. The Applicant has placed reliance on Order dated 09.06.2020 passed by this Court in the case of Bharat Jaiswal vs. State of Goa anr., LD-VC-BA-5-2020 and Order dated 06.11.2020 passed by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh vs. State, through In Charge Colva Police Station & anr., STM(APPLN) 1641/2020 in STM No.1477/2020. In these cases, a similar condition was diluted so that the Applicant could be released on bail.

8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, this Court is of the opinion that the present application can be granted by