Bail conditions should not be so onerous as to virtually deny bail, and the amount of bail bond should be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and should not be excessive, as per Section 440 Cr.P.C.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, and Mrs. Aungla Aier, learned Junior Govt. Advocate, Nagaland.

2. This revision is directed against the orders, dated 7.1.2005 and 8.1.2005, passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) Dimapur, Nagaland, in GR Case No. 465/2004 (corresponding to Dimpaur East P. S. Case No. 161/04) under Sections 420/464/467/468 IPC.

3. Before coming to the directions contained in the orders impugned in the present revision, it is necessary to set out, in brief, hereinbelow, the various stages, which have led to the passing of the impugned orders aforementioned :-

(i) An order was passed, on 25.10.2004, by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) Dimapur, Nagaland, in G.R. 465/04, aforementioned granting bail in favour of the accused-petitioner subject to the following conditions :

(1) To deposit a sum of Rs. 25 lakh in cash towards recovery of public money misused by him.

(2) Undertaking to deposit the rest of the public money collected by him by 25.11.2004.

(3) Accused to attend I/O on summon to help complete the investigation.

(4) Furnish a surety as bailor for Rs. 25 lakh who shall deposit original patta in support of existence of the landed property.

(5) Accused shall not leave Dimapur without the permission of this Court during pendency of this case.

(6) Any fresh evidence if brought by the I/O the interim bail shall automatically stands cancelled.

(7) Execute a bail bond for Rs. 25 lakh. Bail till 25.11.2004 granted.

(ii) The above order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 670/04 on the ground that the conditions aforementioned imposed on the accused-petitioner, white granting interim bail by the order, dated 25.10.2004, were harsh and untenable in law.

(iii) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court observed and directed, in GR Case No. 465/2004 aforementioned, as follows :

"The accused-petitioner abovenamed is alleged to have fraudulently withdrawn the money from the Dimapur Post Office by forging the signatures of the depositors. In a situation, such as the present one, all the conditions imposed by the impugned order, dated 25.10.2004, aforementioned cannot be said to be unreasonable and/or untenable in law. However, as regards the condition Nos. 1 and 2, namely, (1) that the accused-petitioner above-named shall deposit a sum of Rs. 25 lakh, in cash, towards recovery of public money misused by him and that (2) he shall give an undertaking that he shall deposit the rest of the public money collected by him by 25.11.2004, it is reluctantly conceded even by the learned Govt. Advocate that the conditions No. 1 and 2 could not have been imposed, while granting interim bail, for, imposing of such conditions for granting of bail will be tantamount to holding, without trial, the accused-petitioner guilty of the offences allegedly committed by him.

Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety, the condition Nos. 1 and 2 aforementioned contained in the impugned order, dated 25.10.2004, are hereby set aside, but rest of the conditions imposed while granting interim bail are hereby maintained.

With the above modification in the impugned order, dated 25.10.2004, aforementioned, this revision shall stand disposed of."

(iv) Unable to offer any surety from the local area and also on failing to find a surety, who could offer the surety amount of as much as Rs. 25 lakh, a petition was moved, on behalf of the accused-petitioner in the learned Court below, to modify the conditions aforementioned. On this petition, the learned Court below passed the order, dated 7.1.2005, aforementioned. The relevant portion of the order, dated 7.1.2005, is quoted hereinbelow :

"The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that

(a) the condition Nos. 1 and 2 of this Court's order dated 25.10.04 was set aside by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court's order dated 17.11.2004 and re-affirmed