Judgment ( 1. ) ARGUMENTS heard. ( 2. ) THIS is the fourth application for grant of bail. The first and the second applications, registered as M. Cr. C. Nos. 3763/2007 and 4583/2007 were rejected on merits; for the reasons recorded in the orders-dated 14-5-2007 and 5-7-2007 respectively whereas the third one (M. Cr. C. No. 10691 /2007) was dismissed on 13-5-2008 as withdrawn,with liberty to file afresh in the light of subsequent events. ( 3. ) AFTER being arrested in connection with crime No. 122/2007 registered at P. S. Shahjahanabad Distt. Bhopal, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 381, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with S. 34 of the IPC, the applicant is injudicial custody since 7-4-2007. The corresponding trial is pending as R. T. No. 6157/2007 in the Court of Shri Anil Kumar Singh, ACJM, Bhopal. ( 4. ) AS per the prosecution version, co-accused Mohd. Shoab Khan, husband of the applicant, while". working as Lower Division clerk in the office of the Deputy Welfare commissioner (Bhopal Gas), withdrew a total sum of Rs. 72,77,456/- by forging signatures of the drawing and disbursing authority on blank cheques stolen by him only and the applicant rendered necessary assistance by opening a new account in her name so as to facilitate misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 31,20,041/- deposited in the account through four cheques issued by shoab Khan in her favour. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has submitted that, after dismissal of the previous applications on merits, the following material changes in the circumstances of the case have occurred - (i) Co-accused Santosh and Nasir Khan, have already been enlarged on bail. (ii) An early completion of the trial is not possible in view of the fact that supplementary charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 381,406,407,408,420, 467, 468, 471, 411, 419, 120-B and 170 of the IPC against as many as seven new co-accused has been submitted on 7-3-2009 only. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has further pointed out that one of the co-accused namely Abdul Hanif Khan, the father-in-law of the applicant, in whose account an amount of Rs. , 5,50,000/- was allegedly deposited by Shoab Khan, was released on bail on usual conditions by the Court of session only. ( 7. ) WHILE opposing the prayer for grant of ball, learned Govt. , 5,50,000/- was allegedly deposited by Shoab Khan, was released on bail on usual conditions by the Court of session only. ( 7. ) WHILE opposing the prayer for grant of ball, learned Govt. Advocate has contended that the allegations against the applicant clearly suggest, that she had played a significant role in the misappropriation of a huge amount payable;to the gas victims. He is further of the View that there is overwhelming documentary evidence in the form of the bank records. ( 8. ) THIS being a repeat application, the onus is on the Curt to consider it by noticing the grounds on which earlier one was rejected (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh ranjan alias Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 : (2004 Cri LJ 1796) relied on ). ( 9. ) AS observed in the order dated 5-7-2007 (supra), this is a case altogether different from the cases of Chandraswami, AIR 1997 SC 2575 : (1997 Cri LJ 3124), Sandeep jain, AIR 2000 SC 714 : (2000 Cri LJ 807)and Ashok Dhingra, AIR 2000 SCW 3246 : (2000 Cri LJ 4054) inasmuch as the subject-matter of the offence is a considerably large sum payable as compensation to the victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. ( 10. ) IT is true that co-accused Nasir Khan and Santosh have been enlarged on bail upon the successive applications filed by them but a bare perusal of the corresponding orders would reveal that facility of release on bail was granted on the following grounds - (i) Being charged with the offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC, which is punishable with maximum sentence of three years imprisonment, both of them had completed a period of nearly two years as under-trial prisoners. (ii) The respective subject-matters of the offence comprising amounts of Rs. 2,25,000/- and Rs. 4,65,000/- had already been recovered from them. (iii) Nasirs earlier bail application was rejected with the observation that if the trial is not completed by 29th November, 2008 and the delay is not attributable to him, he shall be at liberty to re-agitate the prayer. ( 11. 2,25,000/- and Rs. 4,65,000/- had already been recovered from them. (iii) Nasirs earlier bail application was rejected with the observation that if the trial is not completed by 29th November, 2008 and the delay is not attributable to him, he shall be at liberty to re-agitate the prayer. ( 11. ) REFERENCE was also made to the settled principles governing grant of regular bail requiring that - (i) a balance has to be struck between liberty of individual and the Interests of the society at large and (ii) the Court has to ensure that under the garb of order rejecting bail, the accused is not detained unnecessarily for an indefinite point of time. ( 12. ) APPARENTLY, the applicant cannot claim parity with co-accused Nasir Khan and santosh because firstly, she is charged with more serious offences arid secondly, out of the subject-matter thereof, only an amount of Rs. 34,000/- could be seized from her bank Account. ( 13. ) THIS apart, while rejecting applicants prayer for grant of bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Abdul Hanif Khan, it was observed by learned Sessions Judge only that, at the relevant point of time, the applicant apparently had no source of income whereas Hanif Khan was practicing as a lawyer in the Civil Court at Bhopal. ( 14. ) IT is well settled that joint or separate trial is always in the discretion of the trial Judge only (A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak air 1988 SC 1531 : (1988 Cri LJ 1661) referred to ). Accordingly, it is not obligatory to try additional accused with the applicant and other persons arraigned as accused in the main charge-sheet. ( 15. ) IN this view of the matter, the delay in trial, occasioned due to other reasons, is the only change in the circumstances of the case after rejection of the previous application. ( 16. ) BAIL, though not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, is a conditional liberty. The relevant provision in the form of sub-section 1 (a) of Section 439 of the Code provides that this Court may direct 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. Further, sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the code, as amended by the Code of Criminal procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 reads as under : - 437.-When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. (3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall impose the conditions - (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed Under this Chapter, (b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he Is suspected, and (c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. and may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary. (Emphasis supplied) ( 17. ) IT is relevant to note that the charges framed against the applicant also relate to the offences falling under Chapter XVII of the IPC. This Court is also not oblivious of the well-settled legal position, as reiterated in Sandeep Jains case (2000 Cri LJ 807) (supra), that any condition to be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the code must be reasonable and judicious and must not tantamount to refusal of bail. ( 18. ) THE Supreme Court in M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. State of T. N. (2002) 10 scc 653 : (2001 AIR SCW 2381) taking note of the fact that, in pursuance of the undertaking given by him, the applicant/accused had already deposited a sum of Rs. 35 crores, proceeded to modify the condition requiring payment of balance sum of Rs. 15 crores by directing that instead, he could furnish corporate guarantee. 35 crores, proceeded to modify the condition requiring payment of balance sum of Rs. 15 crores by directing that instead, he could furnish corporate guarantee. In a subsequent decision, rendered in Sureshchandra ramanlal and another v. State of Gujarat and another, 2008 AIR SCW 4004 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 2001) the Apex Court, while granting bail to ex-Vice Chairman of the bank, who was charged with financial irregularities, has imposed a condition of depositing sum of Rs. 40 lacs with the Bank. ( 19. ) IT is true that these precedents relate to prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but they certainly provide illuminating guidelines for exercising discretion while incorporating conditions of a regular bail. ( 20. ) TAKING into consideration the nature of allegations, character of the incriminating evidence, larger interests of the gas victims and other facts and circumstances of the case including the material aspect of interests of justice as contemplated in subsection (3) (above), I am of the view that the applicant now deserves to be enlarged on bail subject to condition of depositing an amount of Rs. 30 lacs without affecting the merits of her defence. ( 21. ) IT is, therefore, directed that if applicant Smt. Sheeba Khan deposits an amount of Rs. 30 lacs in the Bank Account of the registrar, Office of the Welfare Commissioner (Bhopal Gas) and furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Magistrate for her appearance during trial, she shall be released on bail. Needless to say, nothing contained herein would, in any way, affect the merits of the case. ( 22. ) CERTIFIED copy as per rules. Order accordingly.