JUDGMENT This petition is to modify the bail-condition to deposit Rs.50,000/-directed by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in Cr.M.P.No.1363/2012 dated 26.04.2012. 2. Offences alleged are under Sections 408, 409, 420, 477A r/w 34 & 109 I.P.C. 3. On 26.4.2012, the learned Magistrate granted him bail. He imposed several conditions. One of the condition is that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.50 lakhs in the Court. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was let out on bail and also directed to pay Rs.50 lakhs. He came out on bail. He is unable to satisfy the said condition. He has already produced two property documents worth about Rs.50 lakhs each. 5. The learned counsel cited SASIKALA VS ENFORCEMENT OFFIRCER, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, CHENNAI [ 1997(1) CTC 317 ] PARTHIBAN @ ARJUNAN VS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGADU POLICE STATION [2012(2), MWN(Cr.) 288], SHYAM SINGH VS. STATE [SCC 9(2006) 169] and SUMIT MEHTA VS. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI(2013 STPL(Web) 732 SC) and submitted that in considering the bail matter, liberal view have to be taken and condition which the accused person could not satisfy, should not be imposed. The learned counsel also submitted that there was no choice for the petitioner to air his view. Actually payment of Rs.50 lakhs was thrusted upon him. It is an unilateral action. It was not born out of any bilateral discussion or arguments placed before the Court. 6. The learned Government Advocate filed counter. He submitted that petitioner had availed of the opportunity and came out on bail. He is enjoying the benefit of the bail order. Now,he wants to wriggle out of the situation which is adverse to him. 7. I have anxiously considered the rival submission, perused the materials on record and the decisions cited. 8. Courts grant regular bail. It is not that Courts have no power to impose condition in the bail orders. But it should have some purpose. It should not be in the nature of causing hardship to a person. In the case of ordering cash surety, his ability to pay also to be taken into account. But, it cannot be a tool to collect money, when the eligibility for the amount itself is required to be adjudicated upon. 9. In this case, the learned Magistrate imposed the condition to deposit Rs.50 lakhs based on the view of the complainant. In the case of ordering cash surety, his ability to pay also to be taken into account. But, it cannot be a tool to collect money, when the eligibility for the amount itself is required to be adjudicated upon. 9. In this case, the learned Magistrate imposed the condition to deposit Rs.50 lakhs based on the view of the complainant. Nowhere, it is stated that the accused offered to pay the said amount. It is not stated in the order that the said direction has been taken by the Court independently or upon hearing both sides on this aspect. The Court has been prompted to impose Rs.50 lakhs only based on the submission of the learned counsel for the intervener. 10. Imposition of condition in a bail order is a judicial function. It cannot be abdicated to anybody by the Court. Court cannot be dictated by anybody. 11. There cannot be mechanical way of imposing bail condition. 12. Now, in this case in the trial Court two property documents worth about Rs.50 lakhs each have already been offered by the petitioner. 13. In the circumstances, the order of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai is modified to the effect that the two property documents for Rs.50 lakhs each on proper verification shall be accepted by the Court. Deposit of Rs.50 lakhs in cash need not be insisted upon. 14. In view of the above terms, this petition is ordered.