JUDGMENT : D.G.R. Patnaik, J. Challenge in this application is to a portion of the order dated 19.03.2010 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat by way of a common order passed in five separate anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioner. 2. The portion of the order which is under challenge is that the direction given by the court below to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in any Nationalized Bank, as a condition for his release on bail in the event of his surrender before the trial court.' 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid direction in totally illegal and contrary to the provisions of law and no reason has been assigned as to the basis for imposing such condition on the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail to him. 4. Sri Atanu Banerjee, Advocate, has appeared in this case claiming himself to be the lawyer for the informant in one of the five cases and informs that the informant has also filed a criminal miscellaneous petition before this Court which has been registered as Cr. M.P. No. 465 of 2010 in which he has sought for quashing the impugned order of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner of the present miscellaneous application and prays that the present case be heard together with the aforementioned Cr.M.P. which the informant has filed. 5. The prayer for cancellation of bail, as contended by Sri Banerjee refers to totally different grounds and in a different context altogether whereas in the present application, the challenge is confined only to the condition imposed for depositing the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs for the petitioner's release on bail. The issues raised in both the applications are not identical and do not traverse identical arguments and therefore they need not be mixed up together. 6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. 7. As it appears, separate anticipatory bail applications were filed by the petitioner before the court below in five different cases although the impugned order of anticipatory bail has been passed by way of a common order in all the cases. 8. 6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. 7. As it appears, separate anticipatory bail applications were filed by the petitioner before the court below in five different cases although the impugned order of anticipatory bail has been passed by way of a common order in all the cases. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order I find that the learned court below has recorded an exhaustive and lengthy order noting down the allegations against the petitioner in each of the five cases and in the concluding paragraph, while expressing its decision that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, has granted anticipatory bail but has also imposed a condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. It also appears that the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail has been formed on the basis of the following observations recorded by the court below: “….....Further norms to get construct Govt. building were flouted and it is not known yet who are responsible firstly for, deputing a school teacher to discharge the duty of Junior Engineer when a Junior Engineer was there and secondly who are associated in the mis-appropriation of huge amount of public money. The mastermind behind the alleged embezzlement and the gravemen of the offence is somebody else but the investigation agency and the Education department does not seems to be interested in bursting of whole racket and appears to want to hush-up the matter by bringing only small fishes on the record, still it is not obvious as to what exactly is amount of embezzlement, the F.I.R. speaks about some figure, the report of Education department speaks about something else and report of the J.E. of P.W.D., who took over the possession of the building after stoppage of the work by the Hon'ble High Court is giving datas differently. It is also interesting enough that as per admitted factual position the work was carried out in year 2009 then how the cost could be estimated on the datas of price index prevailing in year 2004 but it was done in this case by the Education department. Having considered the entirety facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed, that the petitioner shall deposit a lump-sum amount of Rs. Having considered the entirety facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed, that the petitioner shall deposit a lump-sum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lacs) in the trial court below and the said court shall fix the said amount in a nationalized bank for a long term and it will not be released in favour of any of the parties during pendency of the trials, the release of the amount will be subject to the result of the trials and that petitioner will surrender in court below on or before 1st April, 2010 and in the event of his surrender he will be granted bail if he has deposited the aforesaid amount and on executing personal bond of 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be close relative of the petitioner to the satisfaction of court below in connection with each case viz. F.I.R. No. 96/09 of police station Jaridih corresponding to G.r. No. 907/09, F.I.R. No. 85/09 of police station Nawadih corresponding to G.R. No. 914/09, F.I.R. No. 88/09 of police station Bokaro Thermal corresponding to G.r. No. 904/09, F.I.R. No. 97/09 of police station Petarbar corresponding' to G.R. No. 1000/09 and F.I.R. No. 126/09 of police station Gomia corresponding to G.R. No. 994/09. 9. It is apparent from the above observations and the ground on which the bail was granted that no specific reason has been assigned as to why such a condition has been imposed. 10. Under the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., certain specific conditions have been laid down which the court may impose while passing an order for grant of anticipatory bail. The court may also include such conditions as it may think fit and proper in the light of the facts of the particular case. However, the purpose for imposing any such conditions is basically to ensure that the accused shall not abscond and that he shall cooperate in course of investigation and shall face trial, if called upon, and further, shall not tamper with the evidences. If the count granting anticipatory bail, imposes any other conditions, then there has to be a reasonable basis for imposition of such condition. If the count granting anticipatory bail, imposes any other conditions, then there has to be a reasonable basis for imposition of such condition. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi 2002 (2) EastCr.C. 40 (SC), in which by the impugned order, while the concerned court had granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons, it had also imposed a condition directing the accused to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs in the form of F.D.R. in the trial court. The Apex Court had held such condition as unreasonable. 11. In the present case also, I find that the condition imposed on the petitioner directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, is unreasonable and an arbitrary condition which has been imposed even after the court below has accorded satisfaction that the facts of the case do justify invoking the discretion in favour of the petitioner under Sub Section 1 of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the discussions made, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The portion of the impugned order dated 19.03.2010 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat whereby the condition has been imposed on the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs with the trial court, is hereby set aside. The period to enable the petitioner to surrender before the court below is extended till Monday of the next week. Let this order be communicated to the court below through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. Application allowed.