Judgment :- While granting bail to the petitioner the Magistrate directed the sureties to produce solvency certificate. This is challenged by him on the ground that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to hold so. 2. Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. provides that the Courts can impose any condition which it considers necessary in order to ensure the attendance of the accused in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him or in order to ensure prevention of commission of any offence similar to the one which he is accused of or of the commission of which he is suspected. That apart, the Courts can also impose conditions in the interest of justice. 3. The question that arises for consideration is whether the condition imposed by the Magistrate requiring the sureties to produce solvency certificate is beyond his powers. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the accused is granted bail on condition of the executing a bond with two solvent sureties insistence upon the production of solvency certificate is unwarranted. As the code gives wide discretion to the Magistrate to impose any condition which he finds necessary that the time of granting bail to the accused the contention that he cannot insist on the production of solvency certificate by a surety is not tenable. Merely because bail is granted on condition of the execution of bond with two solvent sureties there is no embargo upon the Megistrate calling upon the sureties to produce solvency certificate. 4. In Valson v. State of Kerala, (1984-KLT-443) this Court held that even where sureties are insisted on, ordinarily, due weight must be given to the affidavits produced by the sureties and an enquiry or insistence on a solvency certificate must be the exception rather than the rule. Petitioner's contention that in view of the above decision the Magistrate was not justified in calling upon the sureties to produce solvency certificate is devoid of merit. In Valson's case this Court has only held that in the ordinary course affidavits produced by the sureties can be accepted by the Court. But the above decision does not lay down that the Court cannot insist upon the production of solvency certificate by the sureties. 5. Insistence upon the production of solvency certificate cannot be held to be without any justification or beyond the powers of the Magistrate. But the above decision does not lay down that the Court cannot insist upon the production of solvency certificate by the sureties. 5. Insistence upon the production of solvency certificate cannot be held to be without any justification or beyond the powers of the Magistrate. What has been held in Valson's case is only that insistence upon solvency certificate must be the exception rather than the rule. Contention of the petitioner that the Magistrate went wrong in insisting upon the production of solvency certificate is not tenable in view of the specific provision under S. 437(3) of the Code that the Court can impose any condition which it considers necessary. In that view of the matter the Magistrate's order does not call for interference. 6. The petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.