JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 09.09.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 1013/2009, whereby the application for modifying the conditions imposed by the Court below while granting bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C., has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused-petitioner No.1 Dr. Mujahid Saleem is a practicing doctor working for National Guard King Khalid Hospital, King Abdul Aziz Medical City, Jaddah for last many years and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 namely; Tariq Saleem and Gazi Saleem are businessmen doing their business in Dubai and for that purpose they visits Dubai frequently. Further, petitioner No.4 Mrs. Shama Muhajid is the wife of the petitioner No.1. He further submits that due to conditions imposed by the Court below, every time while going abroad and to leave country, the petitioners are bound to apply afresh and surrender their passport and this process generally takes long time to grant permission to leave the country. He also submits that the petitioners undertake to participate and co-operate with the trial as and when required. 4. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of B.V. Venktesh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1999 (1) RCC 274 as also the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in Manmohan Singh v. C.B.I., reported in 2004 Cri LJ 2919 . 5. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the order impugned dated 09.09.2009, by which the application of the petitioners for modifying the conditions has been rejected. I have also thoroughly scanned the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the undertaking given by the petitioners, as the petitioner No.1 is a practicing doctor and petitioner Nos. I have also thoroughly scanned the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the undertaking given by the petitioners, as the petitioner No.1 is a practicing doctor and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are doing their business in Dubai, therefore, applying the ratio decided by the Delhi High Court in the case of Manmohan Singh (supra), in the interest of justice, the conditions imposed upon the petitioners to surrender their passport and not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court, require to be modified. 7. Accordingly, the accused-petitioners are directed to now furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) each with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioners shall, on leaving the country, furnish their itinerary and contact address to the Court on each occasion and shall inform the Court on their return. They shall ensure that their travel abroad do not, in any manner, interfere with the proceedings in the Court and no delay is occasioned on account of such travel. They are also directed to participate in the trial and appear before the trial Court as and when required. 8. In view of the above, the conditions imposed by the trial Court are modified in the terms indicated herein above and the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of.Petition Disposed of As Above. *******