JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted bail by the learned Trial Court on 12.3.2005 with the condition that he shall furnish personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith a local surety of the like amount. In compliance of the said order, the requisite bail bonds including local surety for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was furnished by the petitioner. It is further contended that the said local surety moved an application on 25.8.2005 expressing before the Court his desire to withdraw the surety. Vide order dated 16.9.2005, the petitioner was directed to furnish fresh local surety for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of one month. 3. By the present petition moved under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.9.2005 on the ground that he is not in a position to furnish local surety as ordered by the Court on 12.3.2005. It is contended that the condition is in contravention of the judgment of the Supreme Court. A specific query has been made to learned counsel for the non-petitioner whether during the trial the petitioner's bail bonds were forfeited or he has jumped bail. But, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the non-petitioner. Counsel for the complainant, however, contends that the original order dated 12.3.2005 is not under challenge by which the Trial Court has passed order for furnishing the local surety. 4. I have gone through the order dated 16.9.2005. 5. It is true that order dated 12.3.2005 is not under challenge but earlier, in compliance of the order, the petitioner had furnished the local surety for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- though the burdensome condition has been imposed by the Court below against the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Motiram v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1594. Once the Court satisfied itself to grant bail, the conditions to be imposed for the same should be reasonable and as may not thwart the order of the Court itself. Since, now the petitioner has expressed that he is not in a position to furnish local surety and has, therefore, prayed for permitting him to furnish surety other than local surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, in the interest of justice, the prayer may be allowed. 6. Since, now the petitioner has expressed that he is not in a position to furnish local surety and has, therefore, prayed for permitting him to furnish surety other than local surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, in the interest of justice, the prayer may be allowed. 6. Accordingly, while maintaining the order of bail passed by the Trial Court, the condition with regard to furnishing only local surety is set aside; and, it is ordered that the petitioner shall furnish surety for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 7. With aforesaid modification, the petition stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******