Excessive bail conditions that hinder compliance violate an accused's right to freedom and should be reasonable; modification of such conditions is warranted when they are burdensome.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.

Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C Zoramchhana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram, appearing for respondent No. 1.

2. This application has been filed under Section 528 read with Section 438 & 442 of the BNSS for modification of the Order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Aizawl Judicial District, Mizoram. By the said order, the learned Court while allowing the petitioner to go on bail had made it subject to certain conditions:-

(1) The petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 2 lakhs to be deposited in the Account Branch.

(2) The petitioner shall furnish two reliable sureties who are regular Government servants posted in the area lying within Aizawl Judicial District.

(3) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court or re-locate from his present address which was given in the police record without the permission of this court.

(4) The petitioner shall not influence witnesses or cause directly or indirectly, the destruction or disappearance of any material as may be felt by the Police to have evidential value.

(5) If the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions of the bail order, he may be arrested in similar or any other offences punishable under the law and that his bail shall also be liable to be cancelled.

With these 5 (five) conditions, the learned Court had granted bail to the petitioner vide Order dated 22.05.2025.

3. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by filing this petition seeks modification not in respect of all the five conditions but in respect of two of the conditions, by which the petitioner was directed to furnish two reliable sureties who are regular Government servant posted in the area lying within Aizawl Judicial District as well as the direction given to the petitioner not to re-locate his address, which was given in the police records without the permission of the Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the bail order was given in a month of May 2025, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the conditions and as such, he is not able to get any relief even though the bail was granted. He submits that the petitioner has not been able to get two reliable sureties who have to be regular Government servants working in the area in view of the fact that he has been made the prime accused in a scam involving 150 crores of public money. Learned counsel also submits that the place where he was living before the instant occurrence which was also recorded in a police records is no longer his present address since the owner of the said house had evicted him from them. He also states that the family who was also with him in the said rented place, left the same and are presently staying in the State of Assam, more specifically in the District of Tezpur (Sonitpur). As such, he prays that the said conditions may be modified in the interest of justice.

5. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, in order to substantiate his argument has placed reliance on the following cases:-

(1) Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi , reported in (2000) 2 SCC 66 , by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that keeping in prison, the accused person for a long period, in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only