V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri S. S. Swami, learned Panel lawyer for the applicant-State on the question of admission. This revision petition arises out of an order dt. 8-4-1986, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhabua, in Cr. Revision No. 17 of 1986. ( 2 ) SHRI Swami, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned Judge had no power to modify the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. ( 3 ) A perusal of this revision petition itself, which enumerates grounds of revision, shows that one of the grounds mentioned therein is that 'proceedings against the respondents were initiated under Ss. 107 and 116. , Cr. P. C. It has been contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge erred in law in setting aside the condition with regard to the solvency of the surety. Another ground contained in the revision-memo is that the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is contrary to law. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that on 2-4-1986 in absence of the respondents the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order, purporting to be under S. 116 (3), Cr. P. C. , calling upon the respondents to furnish personal bonds and solvent sureties in a sum of Rs. 2,000/- each, for keeping the peace during the pendency of the proceedings. A further condition as a rider, was imposed that the sureties must be such who do not possess less than six hectares of agricultural land. ( 4 ) IMPOSITION of such conditions was challenged before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhabua who placing reliance on a decision of this court in Criminal Revision No. 306 of 1985, set aside the condition as regards ownership of six hectares of agricultural land and directed the release of the respondents on their furnishing personal bonds in a sum of Rs. 2000/- each. ( 5 ) WHAT is to be regretted is that such revision petitions are brought to this Court instead of the State itself taking such erring officers to task for passing such orders either in utter disregard or in ignorance of the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Motiram v. State of M. P. , AIR 1978 SC 1594 which are not merely repeated but have also been circulated amongst them. To impose such conditions while directing the release of any person on bail, which either the accused or the non-applicants in proceedings such as this cannot fulfil, is nothing short of denial of the individual freedom enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution. Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 has observed that :"it is a travesty of justice that the poor, because the bail procedure it beyond their meagre means, have to suffer long years in pre-trial detention. Risk of monetary loss is not the only deterrent against fleeing from justice. The antiquated procedure perpetuated by the new Code, which insists on a bond with a monetary obligation invariably supported by sureties whose solvency must be proved, operates very harshly against the poor, being beyond their means. They are exploited, suffer deprivation and losses and are unable to defend themselves. The discriminatory nature of the bail system becomes all the more acute by reason of the mechanical way in which it is customarily operated. Hence to eliminate the evil effects of poverty and assure fair and just treatment to the poor in the administration of justice, it is imperative that the bail system should be thoroughly reformed so that it should be possible for the poor, as easily as the rich, to obtain pre-trial release without jeopardising the interests of justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . But even under the law as it stands today the Courts must abandon the antiquated concept under which pre-trial release is ordered only against bail with sureties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . But even while releasing the accused on personal bond it is necessary to caution the Court that the amount of the bond which it fixes should not be based merely on the nature of the charge. The decision as regards the amount of the bond should be an individualised decision depending on the individual financial circumstances of the accused and the probability of his absconding. Moreover, when the accused is released on his personal bond, it would be very harsh and oppressive if he is required to satisfy the court regarding his solvency. The decision as regards the amount of the bond should be an individualised decision depending on the individual financial circumstances of the accused and the probability of his absconding. Moreover, when the accused is released on his personal bond, it would be very harsh and oppressive if he is required to satisfy the court regarding his solvency. An enquiry into his solvency can become a source of great harassment to him and often result in denial of bail and deprivation of liberty and should not, therefore, be insisted upon as a condition of acceptance of the personal bond. " ( 6 ) THE order, as it is, has in fact rectified an error in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It hardly justifies being challenged in a revision petition, much less interference in the impugned order. ( 7 ) THIS petitioner is, therefore, summarily dismissed without notice to the opposite party. Petition dismissed. .