Bail condition modification refused where reconsideration would amount to an impermissible review of an earlier order.

A bail condition requiring the applicant to furnish a security bond equal to the complainant's claim was construed as a bond requirement, not a direction to deposit money in advance or provide a bank guarantee. The cited Supreme Court rulings were found factually distinguishable and inapplicable. As the same condition had already been challenged before the Supreme Court, the High Court declined to reconsider it, since doing so would amount to an impermissible review of the earlier bail order. No ground for modification was made out, and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail condition requiring the applicant to furnish a security bond equal to the amount claimed by the complainant could be modified or withdrawn.

Analysis: The condition was construed as a requirement to furnish security bonds and not as a direction to deposit money in advance or furnish a bank guarantee. The Court held that the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by the applicant were factually distinguishable and did not apply. It was also noted that the same condition had already been challenged before the Supreme Court, making it inappropriate for the High Court to reconsider the issue. Further, removing the condition would amount to review of the earlier bail order, which is impermissible.

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

Ratio Decidendi: A bail condition cannot be modified where the challenge seeks reconsideration of a concluded order, the issue is already pending before the Supreme Court, and the proposed relief would effectively amount to an impermissible review.

---