ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) LABELLING conditions imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Jaleswar while disposing of petitioner's application for bail to be unreasonable, and virtually denial of right to get bail this application has been filed. ( 2 ) ON the accusations of having committed offence punishable under Section 47 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (in short, the 'act') petitioner was arrested. He moved for bail before learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Jaleswar. Learned Magistrate observed that alleged offence was bailable in nature. Petitioner was directed to be released on bail of Rs. 2,000. 00 with one surety for the like amount and to deposit cash security of Rs. 2,000. 00 since, according to learned Magistrate, there was likelihood of his absconding. Petitioner undisputedly has deposited the amount but has prayed for variation of the conditions. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the offence being bailable, and there being no material for the presumptive conclusion of the learned Judicial Magistrate that the petitioner was likely to abscond, direction for furnishing cash security of Rs. 2000. 00 is unreasonable. The learned counsel for state on the other hand submitted that in a given case cash security can be directed to be furnished. It would all depand on the nature of offence, and an offence under the Act being one which relates to illicit distilled liquor is of a serious nature. He fairly accepted that there was no material to support conclusion of learned Mag istrate that petitioner is likely to abscond. It is, however, submitted that since the offence was of a very serious nature, there was always possibility of the accused fleeing from justice. ( 3 ) IN the absence of any specific provision relating to furnishing of cash security and/or conditions which may be attached by a Magistrate while granting bail, it is within the judicial discre tion of the Magistrate concerned to impose such conditions or require furnishing of such security as the circumstances may require. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'cri PC') deals with the provisions as to bails and bonds. There is no specific definition of bail as was observed by me in Surjan Kumar Naik and two others v. Republic of India (Criminal Misc. Case No. 425 of 1994 disposed of on 28-2-1994 ). Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'cri PC') deals with the provisions as to bails and bonds. There is no specific definition of bail as was observed by me in Surjan Kumar Naik and two others v. Republic of India (Criminal Misc. Case No. 425 of 1994 disposed of on 28-2-1994 ). ( 4 ) 'bail' remains as undefined term in the Crpc. Nowhere else the term has been statutorily defined. Conceptually, it continues to be under stood as a right for assertion of freedom against State imposed restraints. Since the U. N. Declara tion of Human Rights of 1948, to which India is a signatory, the concept of bail has found a place within the scope of human rights. The dictionary meaning of the expression 'bail' denotes a secu rity for appearance of a prisoner for his release. Itymologically, the word is derived from an old French verb 'bailer' which means to 'give' or 'to deliver', although another view is that its deriva tion is from the Latin term 'bajulara' meaning 'to bear a burden'. Bail is a conditional liberty, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 1971) spells out certain other details. It states : "when a man is taken or arrested for felony, suspicion of felony, indicted of felony, or any such case, so that he is restrained of his liberty. And being by law bailable, offereth surety to those which have authority to bail him, which sureties are bound for him to the kings use in a certaine summe of money, or body for body, that he shall appears before the Justices of Goale delivery at the next sessions etc. Then upon the bonds of these sureties, as in aforesaid, he is bailed that is to say, set at liberty until the day appointed for his appearance. " bail may thus be regarded as a mechanism whereby the State devolutes upon the community the function of securing the presence of the pris oners and at the same time involves participation of the community in administration of justice. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly impor tant but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be main tained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the Police. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly impor tant but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be main tained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the Police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two con flicting demands, namely, on one hand, the re quirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadven tures of a person alleged to have committed a crime, and on the other, the fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence, viz. , the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. The law of bails, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an impor tant place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assump tion of his guilt. ( 5 ) CHAPTER XXXIII consists of Sections 436 to 450. Sections 436 and 437 provides for the grant ing of bail to accused persons before trial and conviction. For the purposes of bail offences are classified into two categories, i. e. (i) bailable, and (ii) non-bailable. S. 436 provides for granting bail in bailable cases and S. 347 in no-bailable cases. A person accused of bailable offence is entitled to be released on bail pending his trial. In case of such offences, a police officer has no discretion to refuse bail if- the accused is prepared to furnish surety. The Magistrate gets jurisdiction to grant bail during the course of investigation when the accused is produced before him. In bailable offence there is no question of discretion for grant ing bail. In case of such offences, a police officer has no discretion to refuse bail if- the accused is prepared to furnish surety. The Magistrate gets jurisdiction to grant bail during the course of investigation when the accused is produced before him. In bailable offence there is no question of discretion for grant ing bail. The only choice for the court is as to taking a simple recognizance of the principal offender or demanding security with surety. Per sons contemplated by this Section cannot be taken into custody unless they are unable or unwilling to offer bail or to execute personal bonds. The Court has no discretion, when granting bail under this Section, even to impose any condition except the demanding of security with sureties. "bailable offences" is defined in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Cr PC to mean an offence which is shown as bailable in the first Schedule of the Cr PC, or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force; and "non-bailable of fence" means any other offence. ( 6 ) WHILE considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. This requirement stems from the desirability that no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudged. Existence of prima facie case is only to be considered. Elaborate analysis or ex haustive exploration of the merits is not required. Where the offence is of serious nature the question of grant of bail has to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence and amongst others the larger interest of the public. ( 7 ) IT must be understood that in every bailable offence bail is a right and not a favour. The bail demanded should never be excessive with refer ence to social status of the party. As observed by the apex Court in Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, AIR 1958 SC 376 the clas sification of offence into the two categories of bailable and non-bailable offences may perhaps be explained on the basis that bailable offences are generally regarded as less grave and serious than non-bailable offences. As observed by the apex Court in Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, AIR 1958 SC 376 the clas sification of offence into the two categories of bailable and non-bailable offences may perhaps be explained on the basis that bailable offences are generally regarded as less grave and serious than non-bailable offences. Though it may not be easy to explain why offences under Sections 477, 477a, 475 and 506, IPC or Section 47 of the Act should be regarded as bailable, whereas offences under Section 379 should be non-bailable. It was observed in the said case that even in regard to persons accused of bailable offences, if the amount of bail fixed is unreasonably high the accused person can move the High Court or the Court of Session for reduction of that amount. Similarly, a person accused of bailable offence may move the High Court or the Court of Session to be released on bail and the High Court or the Court of Session may direct either that the amount should be re duced or that the person may be admitted to bail. Bail covers both release on one's own bond and one's own bond with surety or sureties. What surety amount should be demanded is dependant on several variable factors. Heavy amount should not be demanded as surety amount. Guiding prin ciples when accused can be released on personal bond without sureties were indicated by the apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1979 Cri LJ 1036 ). The decisions as regards the amount of the bond should be an individualised decision de pending on the individual financial circumstances of the accused and the probability of his abscond ing. It was highlighted that in the majority of cases considerations like family ties and relationship, roots in the community, employment, status etc. may prevail with the court in releasing the accused on his personal bond and particularly in cases where the offence is not grave and the accused is poor or belongs to a weaker Section of the community, and in such cases release on personal bond could, as far as possible, be pre ferred. Courts should be liberal in releasing poor or young or infirm persons and women on their own recognizance putting, however, reasonable conditions if necessary and permissible. Courts should be liberal in releasing poor or young or infirm persons and women on their own recognizance putting, however, reasonable conditions if necessary and permissible. Since Section 436 makes an invariable rule for bail in case of bail able offences subject to specified exception under Sub-Section (2), the surety aspect also has to be kept in mind while dealing with a case of that nature. Conditions relating to sureties should not be excessive as it would virtually amount to denial of bail itself. As observed by this Court in Parades Patra v. State of Orissa, 1933 (2) OLR 452 the Magistrate or Sessions Court has jurisdic tion to require a person to furnish cash security as a condition of bail but such a condition should not be harsh, oppressive and virtually resulting in denial of bail. Section 445, Cr. PC provides that it shall be open to the person who has been directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond (excepting personal bond for good behaviour) to furnish cash security in lieu of personal bond or recognizance with permission of the Court. ( 8 ) JUDGED in the aforesaid background, the direction to furnish cash security in addition to bail bond of other surety is clear by untenable. The said condition is set aside. The petitioner shall, however, furnish property security of Rs. 5,000. 00 (five thousand) with one surety. On the said security being furnished, cash deposited shall be refunded to the petitioner. It is deplorable that even after the position relating to cash secu rity has been elaborated by apex Court and this Court learned JMFC without any basis and with out application of judicial mind has directed the accused-petitioner to furnish cash security on presumptious conclusions. The criminal misc. case is accordingly dis posed of. Order accordingly. .