JUDGMENT V.S. Kotwal J.-Rule. 2. By consent the rule is being argued today. 3. Heard Shri Tushar V. Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.M. Kothari, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. Perused the relevant papers including the previous order. 5. For obvious reasons the rigour of the condition imposed by this Court earlier while granting bail is operating against the petitioner causing him enough hardship. While granting bail in Criminal Revision Application No. 186 of 1985 he was directed not to visit the limits of Delhi and further not to leave the city limits of this metropolis and in case he was required to go out of Bombay at a place other than Delhi he was under obligation to intimate the Investigating Officer attached to Santacruz Police Station about it. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi. His family namely the wife and the children are residing at Delhi. In Bombay he is required to stay with his brother as he has no permanent residence of his own. He obviously cannot stay with his family members and his relations are also at Delhi. His brother is a respectable person in the film world. The petitioner himself is a musician and he is required to go to Delhi on that count also. It is accepted position that till this day after the release on bail the petitioner has not committed breach of any of the conditions. 6. The case has now already been committed to the Court of Session and the petitioner has been regularly attending the Police Station as directed and has also been in Bombay since January 1985. The evidence is of circumstantial nature. There is no direct evidence regarding the involvement of the petitioner and the other accused. The contention of Shri Shah that on merits there is obviously no evidence to implicate the accused requires anxious consideration and cannot be lightly ignored having regard to the nature of evidence collected. The Sessions Court would certainly apply its mind to this aspect in the trial. The deceased was claimed to be the distant relation of the petitioner. Many of the witnesses from Delhi have no personal knowledge about the incident and in fact they are the relations of the deceased and as such there is no scope for any apprehension that they would tamper with the evidence. The deceased was claimed to be the distant relation of the petitioner. Many of the witnesses from Delhi have no personal knowledge about the incident and in fact they are the relations of the deceased and as such there is no scope for any apprehension that they would tamper with the evidence. On the contrary, some of, the witnesses whose evidence is sought to be relied upon by the prosecution such as the employees of a particular hotel are the residents of Bombay and in the nature of things it would be more desirable if the petitioner can stay out of Bombay. The position is obviously reverse when he is directed not to leave the city limits of Bombay. The prosecution have no serious objection in granting the relief. There is no allegation that the petitioner is likely to abscond. The petitioner would be under an obligation to report to the Sessions Court as and when so directed. There is no necessity of asking him to report to any Police Station at Delhi though he can be directed to inform the Police Officer attached to Santacruz Police Station to give his Delhi address. 7. Rule made absolute. 8. Condition Nos. (a) to (f) of bail imposed on this petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 186 of 1985 namely that he shall not leave the city limits; that he shall not go to Delhi and that he shall report to Santacruz Police Station are withdrawn. The petitioner, however, shall be under obligation to inform the Police Officer attached to Santacruz Police Station about his address at Delhi. He would also be under obligation to report to the Registrar of the Sessions Court as and when so directed by that Court for the purpose of that trial. 9. The petitioner shall obtain the consent of the surety for this modification and produce the same before the learned trial Magistrate. 10. The Police Inspector at Santacruz Police Station be informed about the withdrawal of these conditions. Rule made absolute