IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38009 of 2009 1. MALTI DEVI WIFE OF VIJAY MANGAL YADAV 2. UMESHYADAV, SON OF VIJAY MANGAL YADAV 3. DINESH YADAV SON OF VIJAY MANGAL YADAV ALL RESIDENT OF TRAILA, P.S. MORA, DISTT. DARBHANGA. -------- PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 30/10/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for challenging the order passed on 28.8.2009, 14.9.2009 and 8.10.2009. The petitioner was granted bail by order dated 28.8.2009 and one of the conditions for granting bail was that the informant should be the bailor. The petitioner thereafter filed a modification of the order dated 28.8.2009 and the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga modified the order and directed that two of the bailors should be a government servant. The petitioner thereafter again filed modification of the order dated 8.10.2009 which was rejected. It is surprising that such conditions are imposed by the court below which are incapable of being followed. The court below is entitled to impose certain conditions while granting bail with a view to secure the presence of the petitioner during the trial. It is not possible for each and every person to arrange for government servants to be the bailors in the case especially if they can from rural background. In the circumstances, I find that such condition 2 imposed amounts to not granting bail to the petitioner and is self defeating devise. Since the Sessions Judge has found that the petitioner is entitled to grant bail, the court below is directed to impose conditions which would secure the presence of the petitioner during the trial. The court for example can impose the conditions that photograph of the bailor should be affixed to the bail bond or that the bailors may file an affidavit stating therein that they undertake to produce the petitioner on the date required by the court, and/or that the petitioner should report to the Police Thana with respect to change of address or the like. I find that the conditions imposed in the order dated 14.9.2009 are not justified and the court is directed to impose conditions which can be followed by granting bail. This application is thus allowed and the petitioner will move the learned Sessions Judge who will impose conditions which can be followed and are reasonable while granting bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to deposit the cost of FAX for transmitting this order to the learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga. S.Ali (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)