Judgment : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking the relief of modification of the condition, viz., to execute bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- out of which one surety must be a Government Servant in the Central or State Government imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem by order dated 18.4.2007 in Crl.M.P.No. 958 of 2007. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bail itself sought for the provision under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that imposing the condition to the effect that the petitioner shall furnish surety from a person holding the office not below the rank of Upper Division Clerk in the Central or State Government is not at all warranted. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner finds it very difficult to fetch such surety and as such the petitioner is not able to execute the order and he is undergoing incarcaration in the prison from 4.2.2007. 3. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and also perused the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. This is a case of statutory bail and while granting such bail the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, imposed a condition to the effect that the petitioner shall furnish one of the sureties from a person holding the office not below the rank of Upper Division Clerk in the Central or State Government. This Court is of the considered view that such condition is not at all warranted. 6. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held in U. Palaniappan and Another v. Sub-Inspector of Police (2005) 10 SCC 464 that: “On the facts and circumstances of this case, the condition imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail that the first appellant should deposit Rs. 10 lakhs and the second appellant should deposit Rs. 5 lakhs before getting the benefit of anticipatory bail in our opinion is onerous. Hence, in modification of the said order while affirming the grant of anticipatory bail, we direct the appellants to furnish a self-bond on Rs.50,000/- each and one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court or the arresting authority as the case may be”. Hence, in modification of the said order while affirming the grant of anticipatory bail, we direct the appellants to furnish a self-bond on Rs.50,000/- each and one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court or the arresting authority as the case may be”. In yet another decision, the Apex Court has held in Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2002 (2) CTC 63 that: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the imposition of condition to deposit the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs in the form of for in the trial Court is an unreasonable condition and, therefore, we set aside the said condition as a condition precedent for granting anticipatory bail to the accused/appellant. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the condition imposed by the learned additional sessions judge to deposit the sum of Rs. 15 lacs in the form of for in the trial Court, and on the other hand direct that on executing a bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate….” 7. Therefore, in view of the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, this Court is constrained to declare that condition viz., the petitioner shall furnish surety from a person holding office not below the rank of Upper Division Clerk in the Central or State Government and accordingly the same is deleted and instead the petitioner is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-together with two sureties. The Criminal Original petition is ordered accordingly.