Anticipatory bail conditions cannot be illusory when a financial deposit makes relief effectively impossible.

An anticipatory bail condition requiring deposit of a large sum as a precondition was impermissible because it made the relief effectively illusory and imposed an unreasonable financial burden. The Court held that such conditions must be tested against the facts and settled principles governing bail, including the gravity of the offence and the record as a whole, rather than used to secure the complainant's interest. The condition was found unjustified, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the anticipatory bail application in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition imposed while granting anticipatory bail, requiring deposit of a large sum as a precondition, was lawful and whether the High Court's order granting bail on such terms warranted interference and reconsideration.

Analysis: Anticipatory bail conditions must be assessed in the light of the facts of the case and the correct legal position governing grant of bail. A condition that effectively makes the grant of bail illusory by imposing an unreasonable financial burden is impermissible. While allegations of serious cheating and concealment of encumbrances were noticed, the High Court was required to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail on settled principles, including the gravity of the offence and the record as a whole, rather than by imposing an onerous condition intended to secure the complainant's interest.

Conclusion: The condition requiring deposit of Rs. 32,00,000/- as a prerequisite to anticipatory bail was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the prayer for anticipatory bail in accordance with law.

---