ORDER : The captioned petition is filed questioning condition No.1 imposed by the learned LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 418, 417, 420, 408 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The brief facts leading to the top noted case are as under: The petitioners moved bail application before the Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.3843/2020 seeking anticipatory bail. The learned Judge having examined the material on record and having taken note of the fact that the petitioners did not have any antecedents and are not involved in any other offences and also having taken note of the undertaking given by the petitioners in the bail application to the effect that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court was pleased to allow the petition and grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.0186/2020 on execution of personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-each with two sureties for the like sum subject to certain conditions. Amongst the conditions imposed, condition No.1 states that the petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 30 days from the date of the said order and shall file regular bail application. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid condition No.1 are before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently argue and contend that condition No.1 imposed by the learned Judge is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others [Spl.Leave Petition(Criminal) Nos.72817282/2017]. The learned counsel by relying on the same would submit that there are no special reasons forthcoming in the order so as to impose Condition No.1. 4. Learned counsel would submit that since investigation is still in progress and since there are allegations that petitioners are not arraigned as accused, the condition imposed on the petitioners to appear before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate within 30days from the date of the said order and file regular bail application is premature. 4. Learned counsel would submit that since investigation is still in progress and since there are allegations that petitioners are not arraigned as accused, the condition imposed on the petitioners to appear before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate within 30days from the date of the said order and file regular bail application is premature. Learned counsel further submits that the chances of the Investigating Officer dropping present petition after investigation for want of incriminating material cannot be ruled out and the direction in condition No.3 imposed by the Sessions Court to the petitioners to appear before the respondent-police and execute bond in case of their arrest and to cooperate with investigating agency, would suffice and as such condition No.1 imposed is unreasonable and the same would cause lot of hardship and that the said condition runs contrary to the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal’s case. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP. Perused the material on record and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.7578/2018. 6. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Though the crime is registered and there are allegation against the petitioners also. However, at this stage, the petitioners are not arraigned as accused in the FIR. The Hon’ble Apex Court while examining an identical issue was of the view that the protection granted to a person under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure should not invariably be limited to a fixed period and that it should inure in favour of accused without any restriction on time. Further, the Apex Court was of the view that normal conditions under Section 437(3) read with Section 438(2) should be imposed and only if there are specific facts or features in regard to any offence, it is open for the Court to impose any appropriate condition (including fixed nature of relief, or its being tied to an event) etc. As such, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard has some force. In the present case on hand, I am of the view that there are no specific facts or features in regard to any offence which would warrant imposition of any restriction. As such, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard has some force. In the present case on hand, I am of the view that there are no specific facts or features in regard to any offence which would warrant imposition of any restriction. It is also worth to note that since the investigation is yet to be concluded, the petitioners, at this stage, have no occasion to appear before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. Since condition No.3 imposed by the learned Sessions Judge already has a direction against the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer and execute personal bond in case of their arrest, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in imposing aforesaid condition No.1. The petitioners relying on the decision of the Apex Court have demonstrated that they are entitled for relaxation of condition No.1 imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail to them in Crime No.186/2020. 7. In the light of the above said discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.3843/2020 is modified relaxing condition No.1 imposed therein.