Anticipatory bail conditions may include alternative financial security instead of human sureties, if reasonable and proportionate.

While granting anticipatory bail, the Court held that the object of bail is to secure the accused's presence and cooperation, not to impose oppressive conditions that defeat liberty. It accepted that human sureties are not mandatory in every case and that a personal bond may be supported by alternative financial security, including cash deposit, fixed deposit, bank guarantee or blocked funds, where offered and appropriate. The Court required that such conditions remain reasonable, workable and proportionate, and it preserved safeguards for attendance, non-interference with witnesses and compliance with investigation requirements. The petitioners were thus entitled to anticipatory bail on conditions designed to secure appearance and cooperation.

---

---

Issues: Whether, while granting anticipatory bail, the accused can be permitted to furnish a personal bond with an alternative financial security such as cash deposit, fixed deposit, bank guarantee or blocking of funds instead of insisting on only human sureties, and whether such conditions can be tailored to secure appearance and investigation.

Analysis: The reasoning proceeds on the basis that the object of bail is to secure the accused's presence at trial, not to impose an oppressive condition that indirectly defeats liberty. The Court surveyed prior authorities to hold that insistence on local or human sureties is not mandatory in every case, that cash or financial security may be accepted where the accused offers it, and that conditions under anticipatory bail must be reasonable, workable and proportionate. The Court emphasized changing social and technological realities, the practical limits of stock sureties, and the need to permit alternatives that still protect the investigation and the administration of justice. At the same time, the Court retained protective conditions requiring attendance, non-interference with witnesses, and compliance with investigation requirements.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail, and the Court validly permitted release on a personal bond with either surety or alternative financial security, subject to stringent conditions to ensure appearance and cooperation.

---