Bail condition challenge rejected where a previously upheld bank guarantee requirement could not be reopened on later financial difficulty.

A bail condition requiring furnishing of a bank guarantee/FDR was challenged on the basis of changed circumstances after the surety withdrew the FDR. The Court held that the same condition had already been assailed and upheld by a detailed earlier order, so the petitioner could not reopen the issue through a fresh petition. Financial inability and withdrawal of the surety were not treated as sufficient grounds to revisit a condition already decided on merits. The challenge to the bail condition was therefore rejected, and no interference was made with the previously upheld requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition seeking quashing of the bail condition requiring furnishing of a bank guarantee/FDR of Rs.50 lakhs was maintainable on the plea of changed circumstances after the surety withdrew the FDR.

Analysis: The condition had already been challenged earlier and was upheld by a detailed order. The Court held that the petitioner was attempting to reopen the same issue on grounds that were available earlier and had already been considered. The asserted financial inability and withdrawal of the surety did not constitute a sufficient basis to revisit the condition under the invoked jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the bail condition was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition did not warrant interference with the previously upheld bail condition, and the proceedings were brought to an end by dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: A bail condition already upheld on merits cannot be quashed merely on a plea of subsequent financial difficulty or withdrawal of surety, where the petition substantially seeks to reagitate an issue previously decided.

---