Conditions of bail under Section 437(3) CrPC - presumption of innocence - fundamental right to liberty - proportionality of bail conditions - economic offences as a separate class - surety obligation and FDR deposit not obligatory - pre-requisite monetary deposit for grant of bailSurety obligation and FDR deposit not obligatory - proportionality of bail conditions - Whether the condition requiring the sureties to deposit FDRs as security for furnishing surety bonds is legally permissible and/or reasonable. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that there is no provision in the CrPC obliging a surety to deposit fixed deposit receipts as a pre-condition for securing the accused's release on bail; the surety's legal obligation is to ensure the accused's attendance and, if required, the Magistrate may enquire into the soundness of the surety. Directing deposit of FDRs totalling the substantial sum ordered by the Magistrate would therefore go beyond the expectation of law and amount to an onerous, harsh condition, particularly as those funds would remain locked for an indefinite and unpredictable period. Applying the requirement that bail conditions must be reasonable and not arbitrary, the Court concluded that the FDR deposit condition imposed on the sureties is excessive and must be set aside. [Paras 11]The condition directing sureties to deposit FDRs is set aside.Conditions of bail under Section 437(3) CrPC - pre-requisite monetary deposit for grant of bail - economic offences as a separate class - presumption of innocence - Whether the order requiring the accused to deposit 25% of the alleged amount as a pre-requisite for bail was permissible and, if not, what modification is appropriate. - HELD THAT: - The Court recognised the settled principle that courts may impose conditions under Section 437(3) CrPC, including monetary conditions, in the interests of justice, but such conditions must not be arbitrary, excessive or unrelated to the good administration of justice. The Court also acknowledged that economic offences are a distinct category warranting a stricter approach because of the risk of flight and the public interest involved. Balancing the accused's fundamental right to liberty and presumption of innocence against the State's legitimate concern to secure his presence and protect the public interest, the Court found the specific 25% pre-deposit to be excessive. Consequently, while upholding the Court's power to impose a monetary pre-condition in appropriate economic offence cases, the Court modified the condition to require deposit of 15% of the total amount involved by way of an FDR in court as a pre-requisite to bail. [Paras 12, 16]The 25% pre-deposit condition is modified to a requirement that the accused deposit 15% of the total amount involved by way of an FDR in court as a pre-requisite for bail; the remainder of the bail conditions continue subject to the modification.Final Conclusion: The application is allowed in part: the Magistrate's direction that the sureties deposit FDRs is set aside as unreasonable, and the requirement that the accused deposit 25% of the alleged amount for bail is reduced and modified to a 15% FDR deposit in court; the bail order dated 12.10.2020 stands modified accordingly.