ORDER 1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Sessions Judge Indore who had granted a bail to the applicant for offence under S. 457/80 IPC by putting a condition that he should report himself every day at 1 p.m. at Palasia Police Station, Indore City. He has been asked to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 2,000. This condition of his reporting everyday to the Palasia Police Station has been imposed on the ground that the applicant is said to be a previous convict and may abscond or commit such offence if at large. The applicant has come up in revision challenging that the condition of his going to the Police Station every day for reporting himself is without jurisdiction." 2. So far as granting bail is concerned the provisions are given in Ss. 495 to 499 Cri. Pro. Code. S, 499 reads as follows: "Bond of accused and sureties: (1) Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police-officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be. (2) If the case so require, the bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High Court, Court of Sessions or other Court to answer the charge. (3)............... 3, The learned counsel for the applicant referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1949 Cal, 582 Kamla Pandey Vs. the King, In that case the Sessions Judge granted a bail to the petitioner upon a condition that he 'should not leave the limits of the town of Midnapore, whereas his family was living at Kharagpur. Their lordship' held that granting bail with such a condition was tantamount to refusing the bail. 4. The other decision relied on by him is AIR 1950 All. 525 Rex Vs. Their lordship' held that granting bail with such a condition was tantamount to refusing the bail. 4. The other decision relied on by him is AIR 1950 All. 525 Rex Vs. Gendasingh, in which their Lordships have held that in bailable cases no conditions (such as ordering accused not to take part in demonstrations or make any public speech) can be imposed in an order granting bail. 5. It will be clear from the observations of the above mentioned cases that when restrictions were put on the accused after granting of the bail regarding his movements, their Lordships have held that such conditions could not be put. 6. I have no quarrel with those observation. S.499 does not lay down any such conditions contemplated under the above cases. But in the Instant case we are not concerned with the restrictions of the movements as were found in the cases referred to above. In the instant case the Session Judge has only asked the applicant to attend the police station every day. S. 499 Cri. Pro. Code has already been quoted above. It will be clear from that section that the word used are "that such persons shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond." 7. Therefore a condition can be laid down that the person should attend at a particular time and a particular place. It is also clear from the earlier part of the section that bail can be granted by the police officer or the Court. Therefore the condition that the accused will attend the police station is not foreign to S. 499. If it was the intention of the legislature that the place should always be the Court then they would have mentioned the word Court instead of mentioning the words "time and place" This indicates that the place is not restricted only to the Court. 8. On the other hand though the facts are not the same the observations made in a decision reported in A.I.R. 1938 Nag. 420 (Aakoo Vs. Emperor) are of some help in this case. In that case direction was made for the production of the accused in the High Court on a particular date and subsequently in the Court of the District Magistrate where the judgment was reserved. 420 (Aakoo Vs. Emperor) are of some help in this case. In that case direction was made for the production of the accused in the High Court on a particular date and subsequently in the Court of the District Magistrate where the judgment was reserved. It is held by their Lordships that the appearance of the accused before any Court to bear a judgment is quite in conformity with S. 499 (2) Cri. Pro. Code. 9. In AIR 1940 Pat. 375 Rambilas Vs. Emperor there was a condition that the bailors would keep the accused in Monghyr so that they may neither rejoin the satyagrah at Laga nor do they instigate others to join or carryon the movements there. This condition was found by their Lordships to be quite in order. 10. I, therefore, do not see that the order under revision is wrong in any way. The revision petition is therefore dismissed.