ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking relaxation of the condition imposed in the order dated 17-6-2009 in CrI.M.P .No. 932 of20090n the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboob nagar, wherein the petitioner-accused was inter alia directed to deposit interim compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the victim in the committal Court. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The above said condition was imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to the petitioner-accused, who is accused of offences under Sections 363,376,201 read with 109 IPC relaying on the decision reported in Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss. Subhra Chakraborty1. 4. In the above case it is held that interim compensation can be paid during the pendency of the criminal case. As no charge sheet is filed against the petitioner-accused, the decision relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. I n recent decision in Munish Bhasin and others v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another2, the apex Court held as follows: "It is well settled that while exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code neither the High Court nor the Sessions Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt that the Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under Section 438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant condition at all. The conditions, which can be imposed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail, are enumerated in sub-section (2)of Section 438 and sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code. Normally, conditions can be imposed (i) to secure the presence of the accused before the investigating officer or before the court, (ii) to prevent him from fleeing the course of justice, (iii) to prevent him from tampering with the evidence or to prevent him from inducing or intimidating the witnesses so as to dissuade them from disclosing the facts before the police or court, or (iv) restricting the movements of the accused in a particular area or locality or to maintain law and order, etc. To subject an accused to any other condition would be beyond jurisdiction of the power conferred on court under Section 438 of the Code. To subject an accused to any other condition would be beyond jurisdiction of the power conferred on court under Section 438 of the Code. While imposing conditions on an accused who approaches the court under Section 438 of the Code, the court should be extremely chary in imposing conditions and should not transgress its jurisdiction or power by imposing the conditions which are not called for at all. There is no manner of doubt that the conditions to be imposed under Section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh, onerous or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner owing to his poverty is unable to pay the interim compensation of Rs. 30,000/-asordered by the learned Sessions Judge and is therefore languishing in judicial custody in spite of order of bail granted in his favour. The above condition directing the petitioner to pay interim compensation of Rs. 30,000/-while considering the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is certainly onerous in nature and extraneous, in view of the principles laid down in the above decision. Such condition directing the petitioner to pay interim compensation while considering his application for bail when the investigation is still pending is unsustainable. Hence, the said condition is set aside. The other conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail remain unchanged. 7. In the result, the `