S. R. BANNURMATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. ( 2 ) THE petitioner and others are the accused in Crime No. 65/2002 for the offences under Ss. 363 and 392, IPC. Immediately after the arrest, the petitioner and other accused have sought for releasing them on bail. Considering the rival contentions, the learned Magistrate by the order dated 7-6-2002 allowed the application and ordered releasing of the petitioner and others on bail on the following conditions :1. Accused Nos. 1-5 are released on bail on each of them furnishing personal bond of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each. 2. Accused Nos. 1-5 shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- cash within one month from the day of release. 3. Accused Nos. 1-5 shall mark their attendance before Central Police Station, for 3 months or till laying of the charge-sheet which ever is earlier, every Sunday in between 10-12 a. m. 4. Accused Nos. 1-5 shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore City or Bangalore Rural until charge-sheet is filed. 5. Accused Nos. 1-5 shall not threaten/tamper the complainant or complainant witnesses. ( 3 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the imposition of condition No. 2 namely accused depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- cash within one month from the date of release on the ground that imposition of this condition is illegal and amounts to miscarriage of justice. It is contended that nowhere under the Code, the law prescribes insistence of cash security. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Afsar Khan v. State reported in ILR 1992 Kant 2894 : 1992 Cri LJ 1676. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that as per the provision of Sec. 437, especially Clause 131, when a person accused or suspected of a commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years or more or an offence under Chapters 6, 16, 27 of IPC if any such offender is to be released on bail, the Court may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary. ( 5 ) IN the present case, it is to be considered whether the wording 'any conditions' gives unfettering power to the Court to impose any conditions literally it deems fit. As long back as in the year 1978, the Apex Court in the case of Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1978 SC 1594 : (1978 Cri LJ 1703) noted that while granting bail it should not be an illusory order. The accused to be released on bail must be able to comply with the conditions and if the conditions are like insistence of heavy cash security or deposit, it would amount to discrimination, inasmuch as moneyed accused may be able to come out on bail by depositing heavy amount, whereas the persons belonging to poor strata, only because he is poor will not be able to get the benefit of the bail granted. As such, the Apex Court directed that the Court should consider prudently to the conditions to be imposed against the accused who is to be released on bail keeping in view certain aspects. ( 6 ) EVEN in a later case in the case of Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. The State of Bihar reported in AIR 1985 SC 1666 : (1985 Cri LJ 1857) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "insistence of heavy cash security would virtually amount to denial of bail and as such imposition of such conditions are illegal and erroneous". This aspect has again been considered by this Court also in the case of Afsar Khan's case referred to supra. ( 7 ) TAKING into consideration these aspects, in my view, imposition of Condition No. 2 i. e. insistence of cash deposit of Rs. 10,000/- each on the accused is illegal and liable to be quashed. It is made clear that rests of the conditions are to be maintained. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .