Order This petition involves the interpretation of sections 496 and 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent was accused of offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After he was arrested and remanded to custody, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bezwada, was moved under section 496, Criminal Procedure Code. He was admitted to bail on condition that he should appear before the Commissioner of Police, Madras, whenever required to do so. This term was challenged before me as being repugnant to the terms of section 496, Criminal Procedure Code. At the same time, the accused expressed his willingness to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bezwada, whenever called upon to do so to facilitate the investigation into the crime. Sometime after the order was passed by me deleting the clause in question, the Public Prosecutor wanted directions in regard to the production of the said accused before the Commissioner of Police, Madras. In support of this request, the Public Prosecutor urged that it is quite competent for a Court granting bail to impose such a term as a combined reading to sections 496 and 499, Criminal Procedure Code, warranted it. As substantiating this proposition reliance was placed by him on Kimatrai v. Emperor1, as well as on Emperor v. Kanshi Ram2. I do not think I can derive much assistance from these rulings. They relate to bail granted under section 497, Criminal Procedure Code. The Public Prosecutor next called in aid the terms of section 499, Criminal Procedure Code which lays down: “499. (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 conditional 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. * * * ***” According to the Public Prosecutor the language of this section justifies the requiring of the presence of an accused person before any Police Officer, the clause that such a person “shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond” having that effect. I do not think I can accede to this contention. * * * ***” According to the Public Prosecutor the language of this section justifies the requiring of the presence of an accused person before any Police Officer, the clause that such a person “shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond” having that effect. I do not think I can accede to this contention. The words “such a person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond” have reference to attendance only in Courts. Vide Giane Meher Singh v. Emperor3, The form prescribed for the execution of a bond under sections 496 and 499 furnished a clue to the interpretation of this section. Further, the object of bail is to ensure the appearance of an accused person in Court, and not for making him available during the investigation. In my judgment, therefore, section 499 contemplates only appearance in Court and not at any other place. I shall next see whether such a condition is permissible under section 496, Criminal Procedure Code. That section envisages an accused person being released on bail when the charge against him is in regard to a bailable offence. The words used are “such person shall be released on bail” thereby denoting that it is mandatory on the Magistrate to admit him to bail when an application is made before him in that behalf. He has no discretion to impose any conditions, the only discretion that is left in him being only as to the amount of the bond or whether the bail could be on his bond or with sureties. Any condition subject to which the bail should operate infringes the provisions of section 496. The bail under section 496, Criminal Procedure Code, should be an unconditional one. This view of mine is in conformity with the current of authority of several of the High Courts. See District Magistrate, Visaka-patnam (Referring Officer)4, Radha v. State5, and Rex v. Genda Singh6. The considerations that pertains to an order under section 497, Criminal Procedure Code, do not apply to the granting of bail under section 496, Criminal Procedure Code. In the former case, it is the discretion of a Court to release the accused on bail or not and while releasing the accused on bail it could impose certain restrictions. But the accused is entitled to claim bail under section 496. In the former case, it is the discretion of a Court to release the accused on bail or not and while releasing the accused on bail it could impose certain restrictions. But the accused is entitled to claim bail under section 496. In the premises, the accused cannot be compelled to appear before the Commissioner of Police at Madras, as it is a condition which is repugnant to the terms of section 496. Consquently the clause in that behalf cannot be restored as it was validly deleted. A.S.R. ----- Petition dismissed.