APPLN.5379-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 5379 OF 2010 Paturi Polayya @ Prashant ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent *** Mr. G. T. Kanchanpurkar, for the Applicant. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Court in Bail Application No. 599 of 2010. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to direct that the applicant be released on furnishing P. R. bond in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs with two solvent sureties in the like amount. The learned counsel for the applicants submit that annual income of the applicant is Rs.50,000/- per year. He further submits that it will not be possible for the applicant to furnish P.R. bond APPLN.5379-10 - 2 - in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs with two solvent sureties in the like amount. 2. It is settled position in law that once the Court comes to the conclusion that the applicant deserves to be released on bail, then the Court should not impose the conditions, which is not possible to perform. In my view, since the applicant is unable to furnish the solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs, it would be appropriate if the said amount is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. In the present case, taking into consideration the annual income of the applicant, it does appear that the applicant would be in a position to furnish P.R. bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one or two solvent sureties. The impugned order is accordingly modified and the applicant is directed to be released on furnishing P. R. bond of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. [ V. M. KANADE J.]