ORDER : A.Y KOGJE, J. 1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H.K Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State. 2. This application is filed for deletion of condition No. 2 imposed by an order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 855/2016, by which the applicant was ordered to be enlarged in connection with the First Information Report being I-C.R No. 37/2016 registered with Petlad Town Police Station, Anand for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 337, 332, 395, 397, 436, 452, 427, 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that after imposing condition under the order dated 31.08.2016, a period of almost one year has passed and nothing untoward is reported against the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is working with a news agency and for attending his work, his presence is necessary. It is also submitted that the applicant is also Chairman of Water Board of Petlad Nagar Palika and other committees of the Nagar Palika for which his presence is necessary. It is further submitted that on account of medical condition of his father, who is suffering with hepatitis to attend to his father, his presence is necessary. Learned Advocate for the applicant also draws attention of this Court to the relevant papers to substantiate his arguments on the requirement of applicant to enter within the revenue limits of Petlad and therefore, prays for modification or deletion of the condition as stated hereinabove. 4. Against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H.K Patel strongly objects the grant of deletion of condition submitting that while the applicant was enlarged on conditional bail prohibiting his entry within Petlad, it was found that on one occasion, the mobile phone of the applicant was found being used within Petlad and therefore, the applicant has committed breach of the condition of bail. It is also submitted that the applicant is facing two trials and both are at a sensitive stage, the first trial being at the stage of further statement and the second is at the stage of framing the charge-sheet. It is also submitted that the applicant is facing two trials and both are at a sensitive stage, the first trial being at the stage of further statement and the second is at the stage of framing the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the applicant being an influential person his entry into Petlad may lead to a problem of law and order situation and therefore, the prayers made in this application may not be granted. 5. By way of a Rejoinder, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that on earlier three occasions, for temporary period, such conditions were suspended to enable the applicant to attend a meeting, thereafter, to attend the after death ceremony of his real brother, who passed away recently and also to attend to his ailing father. He submits that during all the three occasions, there is no Report of the applicant having misused the liberty. He further submits that making an issue of the use of mobile phone of the applicant within Petlad, an application for cancellation of bail was preferred vide Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 989/2016 which was rejected by an order dated 08.02.2017 wherein the Sessions Court has also held that even if it is assumed that while the mobile phone was used within the territory of Petlad and the applicant was actually in Petlad, no untoward incident has been reported against the applicant and on that count, the application came to be rejected. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and situation and more particularly, the objection of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground of the offences pending at a sensitive stage, it would be appropriate to consider the case of the applicant for suspending the condition No. 2 of the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 855/2016 temporarily for a period of two months hereof. It would also be appropriate to impose additional condition while the above condition No. 2 is suspended. 7. In view of the aforesaid, condition No. 2 of the order dated 31.08.2016 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 855/2016 is suspended for a period of two months hereof. For a period of two months, while the above condition No. 2 remains suspended, the applicant shall mark his presence every fifteen (15) days before the concerned Police Station. 8. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. For a period of two months, while the above condition No. 2 remains suspended, the applicant shall mark his presence every fifteen (15) days before the concerned Police Station. 8. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.