JUDGMENT Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J. - Heard the petitioner's counsel and Sri Renukaradhya, the High Court Government Pleader. 2. This is a petition filed under section 439(1)(b) read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for modifying a condition imposed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Crl. Mis.No. 589/2020 while granting bail to the petitioner. 3. Given a background that has led to preferring this petition, the petitioner who is accused No.8 in Crime No. 247/2017 registered by the respondent police for the offences under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 307, 302 read with section 149 of IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, was admitted to bail on 28.5.2018 with certain conditions. He is now facing trial in S.C.124/2018. Since the petitioner failed to appear regularly before the court during trial, the trial court issued non-bailable warrant for securing his presence. He was arrested on 9.10.2019. Again he applied for bail by filing Crl. Mis. No. 589/2020 and the Sessions Court by order dated 12.6.2020 granted bail to him by imposing conditions that he should execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- and provide two sureties, that he shall remit 25% of the earlier self bond amount and pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. Seeking relaxation of the condition which directs him to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, the petitioner has approached this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ranganath Reddy submits that one of the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court is that the petitioner should pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for his release from jail. He is unable to pay this amount because of his poverty. Therefore this condition requires modification and amount reduced. He places reliance on two judgments, one of the Supreme Court in the case of Keshab Narayan Banerjee and Another vs The State of Bihar, (1985) AIR SC 1666 and of this court in the case of Kaleem @ Kaleem Pasha vs State by Central Police, (2003) 2 ALD(Cri) 13 . He also submits that since the Sessions Court has granted bail by imposing conditions, the High Court alone can modify or relax the conditions. He also submits that since the Sessions Court has granted bail by imposing conditions, the High Court alone can modify or relax the conditions. His submission is also that section 439 of Cr.P.C has conferred concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and Sessions Court, and for this reason the petitioner can approach any of the two courts seeking modification or relaxation of bail conditions. 5. High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition. 6. For the reason that the learned counsel for the petitioner raises a point of argument as regards concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the Sessions Court envisaged under section 439 of Cr.P.C, I think it requires clarification. 7. No doubt, concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Court under section 439 Cr.P.C. That means, an accused may approach any of the courts for bail, but once he invokes jurisdiction of the Sessions Court for bail, he must first approach the very same court for modification or relaxation of a bail condition if he finds it hard to comply with. In case accused approaches the High Court for bail, and if bail is granted with some conditions, as the accused can again come before the High Court seeking relaxation of any of the conditions which he cannot fully comply with, so is the case whenever a Sessions Court grants bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. Concurrent jurisdiction is vested in the Sessions Court not only for granting bail, but also for modifying or relaxing conditions. Moreover, a plain reading of section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that an accused can apply either to High Court or the Sessions Court for modifying any condition imposed by a Magistrate while granting bail. It does not deal with a situation where bail is granted by the Sessions Court under section 439 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C. But the necessary corollary would be the court which grants bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C has power to modify the bail condition imposed by it, it is not necessary that the accused should approach next higher court. Exercising such a power does not amount to reviewing its own order. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshab Narayan Banerjee and Another (supra) has not laid down any ratio. Exercising such a power does not amount to reviewing its own order. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshab Narayan Banerjee and Another (supra) has not laid down any ratio. The facts in the said case disclose that the High Court imposed a condition which the accused found it difficult to comply; there is no discussion as to scope of jurisdiction of the Sessions Court under section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. if the bail is granted by it. 9. The judgment of this court in Kaleem @ Kaleem Pasha (supra) makes it very clear that bail was granted by the Magistrate in relation to offences punishable under sections 363 and 392 of IPC. The conditions imposed by the Magistrate were found to be onerous and the accused therefore applied to this court for modification of condition No.2. This judgment does not help the petitioner. 10. For the foregoing reasons, no opinion is expressed on the merits of the petition. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the Sessions Court. He can move this court only if the Sessions Court rejects his petition. The petition stands disposed of.