Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order dated 212.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar whereby while granting the benefit of bail under Section 439 Cr PC has imposed a condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/-in the Court and the same amount shall be given to the complainant after taking an undertaking from him that in case, the petitioner is acquitted, then the complainant will return the said amount to the Court. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ali Mohd. Khan, has argued that while granting the benefit of bail under Section 439 Cr PC, such onerous condition cannot be imposed. For imposition of such condition, it has to be presumed that the person is guilty, even before his guilty has been proved by the prosecution during the course of trial. The imposition of such condition is contrary to the very first principle of Common Law. He has also relied upon the case of U. Palaniappan & Anr. vs. Sub-Inspector of Police reported in 2005 (10) SCC 464 . 3. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Arun Sharma, has contended that such condition can be imposed by the trial Court under Section 437(3)© Cr PC wherein any condition can be imposed by the Court. Therefore, in the interest of justice, he has supported the impugned order. 4. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is relevant to mention here that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilty of the accused person during the course of trial. Therefore, the guilt of an offender cannot be presumed by the Court until and unless it is proved by a cogent evidence. The philosophy behind the grant of bail is that the liberty of the offender should be restored although he is alleged to commit a crime against the society at large. In order to ensure his attendance during the trial, a condition with regard to the submission of bail bonds or personal surety are imposed by the Court. However, even in the case under Section 439 CrPC, a condition cannot be imposed that the amount allegedly involved in the case should be deposited by the offender and temporarily given to the complaint. Such imposition clearly presumes that from the very beginning the offender is guilty of the alleged crime. However, even in the case under Section 439 CrPC, a condition cannot be imposed that the amount allegedly involved in the case should be deposited by the offender and temporarily given to the complaint. Such imposition clearly presumes that from the very beginning the offender is guilty of the alleged crime. Hence, imposition of such a condition would be contrary to the very first principle of Common Law. Secondly, the imposition of such condition would be said to be an onerous condition on a citizen in order to secure his liberty. Such condition would also be violative of the right of "personal liberty" guaranteed by the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Ceased with a similar set of facts, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of U. Palaniappal & Anr. (Supra) has held the imposition of such condition is onerous. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we modify the order dated 212.2005 and delete the condition with regard to the deposition of Rs. 50,000/-by the accused petitioner in the trial Court. Rests of the order dated 212.2005 is confirmed. ‘ 5. With these observations, this petition is disposed of .