Security bond bail condition upheld where further modification would amount to review and duplicate a pending Supreme Court challenge.

A bail condition requiring a security bond equal to the tax and penalty claim was not modified because it did not require advance deposit or a bank guarantee, and the Supreme Court decisions cited concerned materially different conditions. The High Court also declined to re-examine the issue because the same challenge had already been taken to the Supreme Court, and any further alteration would amount to an impermissible review of the earlier order. The application for deletion of the condition was dismissed, leaving the bail condition undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition requiring the petitioner to furnish a security bond equal to the tax and penalty claim in the bail order deserved modification or withdrawal.

Analysis: The application sought deletion of the bail condition imposed in the earlier order. The Court held that the impugned condition required only furnishing of a security bond and did not require advance deposit of money or a bank guarantee. It further held that the Supreme Court decisions relied upon concerned materially different bail conditions and were therefore inapplicable. The Court also noted that the same condition had already been challenged before the Supreme Court, making it inappropriate for the High Court to examine the same issue again. A further modification of the earlier order was treated as an impermissible review.

Conclusion: No ground for modification was made out and the application was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The bail condition remained undisturbed, and the request to alter the earlier order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A bail condition requiring a security bond may not be modified where the challenge would effectively amount to review of the earlier order or where the same issue is already pending before the Supreme Court.

---