K. S. JHAVERI, J. ( 1 ) THESE are applications praying for deletion of conditions stipulated in the respective orders of bail granted to them by this Court in various orders. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in short, can be summarised as under: ( 3 ) THE applicants herein have constructed different residential buildings and allotted and sold to different persons. In the earthquake occurred on 26th January 2006 those buildings collapsed on account of which many persons sustained injuries and many of them succumbed to injuries. In view of this complaints were filed against criminal complaints were filed against the applicants. The applicants had filed bail applications and they were released on bail on the terms and conditions stipulated in the said order. The conditions stipulated in the order dated 29th june 2001 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3641 of 2001 are as under:"29. In the facts and circumstances of the case, all these applications are allowed, the petitioners involved in respective offences are ordered to be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety and P. R. in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) each on following conditions: (a) The petitioners shall not leave ahmedabad City and Ahmedabad Rural district till completion and conclusion of the entire investigation and till the submission of final charge-sheet against all the accused persons, and till the apprehension and arrest of all the accused persons involved in the respective cases, without the express permission of the learned City Sessions Judge ahmedabad / concerned court. (b) The petitioners shall not approach, contact, induce or threaten the witnesses connected with the offence in question. (c) The petitioners shall file an affidavit before the learned Sessions Judge concerned, at Ahmedabad showing the place of their residence after their release on bail which would contain details about full address and telephone numbers, if any. (d) The petitioners shall personally remain present on every 1st working day of the month according to British Calendar before the learned City Sessions Judge, ahmedabad / concerned court between 2 pm and 5 pm and mark their presence there. The learned Sessions Judge shall make appropriate arrangements for obtaining their signatures on his appearance. (e) The petitioners shall not leave gujarat State without prior permission of the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad/ concerned court. The learned Sessions Judge shall make appropriate arrangements for obtaining their signatures on his appearance. (e) The petitioners shall not leave gujarat State without prior permission of the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad/ concerned court. (f) The petitioners shall not leave the revenue district of the place of residence stated by them in their affidavit without the permission of the learned City Sessions judge, Ahmedabad / concerned court. (g) Petitioners shall deposit their passport, if any, before the concerned police station before their release on bail. In case a petitioner does not hold any passport, then in that case, he shall file an affidavit before the learned City Sessions Judge, ahmedabad / concerned court disclosing such a fact. (h) The learned City Sessions Judge, ahmedabad /concerned Judge, shall write yadi to the Passport Office, Ahmedabad with respect to the aforesaid conditions imposed upon the petitioners restricting their movement and that he has not been permitted to visit abroad, for their information and action. (i) Each petitioner before his release on bail as aforesaid, shall deposit a sum of rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) before the learned City Sessions Judge, ahmedabad / concerned court for the due performance of the aforesaid conditions by the petitioner/s concerned. The learned sessions Judge will be at liberty to place the said amount in FDR in the name of the officer of his Court at the instance of the petitioner. (j) If any one or more condition are reported to have been breached by the petitioner/s the learned City Sessions Judge, ahmedabad/concerned court shall be at liberty to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner / s. (k) Bail bonds shall be executed before the learned City Sessions Judge, ahmedabad I concerned court. "similar conditions have been imposed in respect of other applicants also. The applicants have therefore prayed for deletion of such conditions on the grounds stated hereinafter. ( 4 ) MR. Raju, learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that when the original complaints were filed some of the sections of IPC mentioned therein were non-bailable offences. He further submitted that after the chargesheet has been filed in each case and charges were framed, the offences mentioned therein are bailable offences. He, therefore, submitted that under the circumstances the conditions which are imposed are required to be deleted in view of various decisions of different High Courts and the recommendation, of Law Commission. He further submitted that after the chargesheet has been filed in each case and charges were framed, the offences mentioned therein are bailable offences. He, therefore, submitted that under the circumstances the conditions which are imposed are required to be deleted in view of various decisions of different High Courts and the recommendation, of Law Commission. A. Mr. Raju, after referring to section 437 of Crpc, further submitted that power to impose conditions is only in case of non-bailable offence and that too where it is punishable more than seven years. Under the provisions of Cr. P. C only in non-bailable offences conditions of bail can be imposed on an accused while being released on bail. ( 5 ) MR. A. Y. Kogje, learned APP submitted that section 439 (1) of Criminal procedure Code stipulates that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section. He therefore submitted that the conditions are not required to be deleted. ( 6 ) IT is an undisputed fact that chargesheets have been filed in all these matters. The concerned Court has also framed charges under sections 304a, 336, 338 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of Gujarat Ownership of Flat act, 1973. The punishment for offences under the said Act is imprisonment for one year, which is a bailable offence. The rest of the offences are also bailable offence i. e. under sections 304a, 336, 338 and 418 of IPC. Therefore, since now all the offences are bailable, no conditions can be imposed while releasing the accused on bail. ( 7 ) AT this stage it would be profitable to look into the law laid down by different High Courts under the aforesaid subject. ( 8 ) MR. S. V. Raju, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants has relied upon various decisions of the High Courts as under:a. In the case of ANWAR hussain V/s. STATE OF ORISSA, reported IN 1995 CRI. LJ. 863, in para 5 it is stated as under:"5. Chapter XXXIII consists of Section 436 to 450. Sections 436 and 437 provides for the granting of bail to accused persons before trial and conviction. LJ. 863, in para 5 it is stated as under:"5. Chapter XXXIII consists of Section 436 to 450. Sections 436 and 437 provides for the granting of bail to accused persons before trial and conviction. For the purposes bail offences are classified into two category i. e. (i) bailable and (ii) non-bailable. Section 436 provides for granting bail in bailable cases and section 437 in non-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 granting ball. The only choice for the court is as to taking a simple recognizance of the principal offender or demanding security with surety. Persons contemplated by this section cannot be taken into custody unless they are unable or unwilling to offer bail or to execute personal bond. The Court has no discretion, when granting bail under this section, even to impose any condition except the demanding of security with sureties. "b. In the case of REX V/s. GENDA singh, REPORTED IN AIR (37) 1950 allahabad 525 it is held asunder: "i am, therefore, of opinion that in bailable cases no condition can be imposed. The order granting bail can just fix the amount for which the accused is to furnish the bond, the number of the sureties to be furnished and the amount for which each of the sureties is to furnish the bond. I, therefore, reject this application. "c. In the case of AZEEZ V/s. STATE OF KERALA, REPORTED IN 1984 (2)CRIMES 413, the Kerala High Court observed as under: "3. The petitioner, being a person accused of only bailable offence, has a right to be enlarged on bail. There is no discretion with the Court enabling it to grant or refuse bail. The Court is required to grant bail in such a case, though the court is at liberty to modulate the terms as to bail. This certainly does not mean that the court can impose a condition which is not a term as to bail. There is no discretion with the Court enabling it to grant or refuse bail. The Court is required to grant bail in such a case, though the court is at liberty to modulate the terms as to bail. This certainly does not mean that the court can impose a condition which is not a term as to bail. The condition that a person accused of bailable offence has to surrender his passport in court is not a term as to bail and therefore cannot be imposed by a magistrate under section 436 of the Code. The condition imposed is illegal and has to be set aside. "d. In the case of HANUMANTHE gowda and ANR V/s. STATE OF karnataka it is held as under: "the wordings of the three sections make it clear that under Section 436 of the code of Criminal Procedure, there is no discretion left to the Court to impose a condition while releasing a person on bail when he is accused of a bailable offence. I am in respectful agreement with the judgements cited above of the Madras High court. I, therefore, hold that the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate while granting bail to the petitioners are without jurisdiction and they are accordingly set aside except releasing the petitioners on bail on their executing a personal bond for rs. 10000/ - each with one surety for like sum for their appearance. "e. In the case of KANUBHAI chhaganlal BRAHMBHATT V/s. STATE of GUJARAT AND OTHERS, REPORTED in 13 GLR 748 it is held that the whole question of producing the accused before a magistrate would only arise if the accused was not prepared to give bail before the police officer after his arrest and even when he is produced before the Magistrate and he is prepared to give bail, the Magistrate has no option but to release him on bail so far as bailable offence is concerned. F. In the case of DISTRICT magistrate OF VIZAGAPATANAM, reported IN AIR (36) 1949 MADRAS 77, it is held as under: "4. In bailable offences it is well settled that there is no question of discretion in granting bail as the words of the section are imperative. The only choice for the Court is as between taking a simple recognizance of the principal offender or demanding security with surety. In bailable offences it is well settled that there is no question of discretion in granting bail as the words of the section are imperative. The only choice for the Court is as between taking a simple recognizance of the principal offender or demanding security with surety. Ordinarily the word "bail" applies to the second kind of security according to the practice and procedure of the Courts. The Criminal Court has no discretion in a bailable offences while granting bail under section 496, Criminal P. C. to impose any condition except the demanding of security with sureties. The reference is accepted and the order of the Magistrate passed on 14th August 1947, granting bail to the accused is modified by deleting from the order the conditions mentioned above. G. In the case of In RE KOTA appalakonda, REPORTED IN AIR (29)1942 MADRAS 740 it is held that where a person is charged with bailable offences only, the Magistrate has no discretion in granting bail and hence the imposing of a condition e. g. not to enter on the disputed land, in a bail order leads to the infringement of the provisions of section 496 in case the condition be not fulfilled. Such is not one authorized by law. ( 9 ) IT is also relevant to quote certain paragraph as stated in the Thirty-Sixth report on Sections 497, 498 and 499 of Cr. PC- grant of bail with conditions (December 1967):"6. Such is not one authorized by law. ( 9 ) IT is also relevant to quote certain paragraph as stated in the Thirty-Sixth report on Sections 497, 498 and 499 of Cr. PC- grant of bail with conditions (December 1967):"6. The amendment suggested by the state Government seeks to replace section 497 (1) as follows :-" (1) When any person accused of or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer incharge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a court, he may be released on bail which may be subject to such conditions as may appear necessary in a particular case if the offence is one punishable with imprisonment, extending to seven years or more or is one falling under Chapters VI, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code including abetment, conspiracy or attempt to commit any such offence, but shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing:- (i) that he is likely to tamper with the evidence or (ii) that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; provided that the court may direct that any person under the age of 16 years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail. Explanation: In granting a conditional bail the Court may impost conditions like requiring the person to reside in a particular locality or to report to the police or any other specified authority". 15. In bailable cases, i. e. those governed by section 496, the court cannot, it seems, impose conditions, as the accused has a right to bail (Nor can a police officer impose conditions requiring attendance before the police. This does not, of course, affect the high Court s power to cancel bail in case of abuse. "this jurisdiction springs from the over-riding inherent powers of the High court and can be invoked in exceptional cases only when the High Court is satisfied that the ends of justice will be defeated unless the accused is committed to custody. " ( 10 ) FROM the above settled law it is clear that when a person is charged with bailable offences and when he is released on bail, the court has no discretion in granting bail and no condition can be imposed. " ( 10 ) FROM the above settled law it is clear that when a person is charged with bailable offences and when he is released on bail, the court has no discretion in granting bail and no condition can be imposed. On the facts of the case it is clear that after filing of the chargesheet, all the offences are bailable offences. On the facts of the case, it is clear that the alleged offences are bailable and therefore the conditions imposed by this Court earlier require to be deleted in view of change of circumstances. ( 11 ) NOW since the offences are bailable offences, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by Mr. Kogje that these are not malicious proceedings and therefore the petition cannot be entertained. When the chargesheet has been filed, and if the offences are bailable, no conditions can be imposed. Mr. Kogje is unable to dispute this position. ( 12 ) POWER to impose conditions is only in case of non-bailable offence and that too where it is punishable more than seven years. Under the provisions of Cr. P. C only in non-bailable offences conditions of bail can be imposed on an accused while being released on bail. Considering the provisions of section 437 of Crpc the conditions imposed are required to be deleted. ( 13 ) IN view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, these applications are partly allowed and the conditions nos. 29 (1), 29 (c) 29 (6), 29 (f), 29 (g), 29 (i)imposed in the order dated 29. 6. 2001 are hereby deleted and the aforesaid order dated 29. 6. 2001 is modified accordingly. The applicants are at liberty to encash the fixed deposit made by them in pursuance of the aforesaid order at any time. Rule is made absolute accordingly. ( 14 ) IN the premises aforesaid these applications are allowed. The conditions Nos. 29 [a], 29[c], 29[e], 29[f], 29[g], 29[h] and 29[i] imposed in the order dated 29. 6. 2001 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3641/2001, 3642/2001 condition Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 imposed in the order dated 11. 7. 2001 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4678/2001, condition Nos. 29[a], 29[c], 29[f], 29[g], 29[h] and 29[i] imposed in the order dated 29. 6. 2001 passed in criminal Misc. Application no. 6. 2001 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3641/2001, 3642/2001 condition Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 imposed in the order dated 11. 7. 2001 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4678/2001, condition Nos. 29[a], 29[c], 29[f], 29[g], 29[h] and 29[i] imposed in the order dated 29. 6. 2001 passed in criminal Misc. Application no. 4117 of 2001 are hereby ordered to be deleted. The amounts deposited by the applicants shall be returned to them. If the amounts are kept in Fixed Deposit the same may be encashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.