ORDER : 1. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1015 of 2013 of Parasala Police Station registered for offences under Section 143, 147, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The petitioner was granted bail on 07.02.2014 as per Annexure A order. According to the petitioner, he has been strictly complying with the bail conditions. The final report in the crime is not submitted even after six years. In order to eke out a living, it became imperative for the petitioner to seek employment abroad. The petitioner submitted an application before the appropriate authority and thereafter filed Crl.M.P.No.3046 of 2019 before the Magistrate Court for issuance of an order stating that the court was no objection in issuing passport to the petitioner. By Annexure B order, the petition was allowed directing the Officer concerned to issue the passport and permit the petitioner to go abroad, subject to the conditions therein. The petitioner is aggrieved by condition No.(g) in Annexure B, requiring him to furnish cash security of Rs.50,000/-. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, having directed to issue the passport and having permitted the petitioner to go abroad for two years, the learned Magistrate should not have imposed the onerous condition of furnishing cash security of Rs.50,000/-. 3. I find substance in the contention. A perusal of Annexure B order reveals that stringent conditions, including the condition of executing bond for Rs.75,000/-with two solvent sureties, are imposed on the petitioner. That being the case, it is not necessary to mulct him with the further condition of furnishing cash security of Rs.50,000/-. In the result, condition No.(g) in Annexure B order is modified as follows:- “The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.75,000/-with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.” The Crl.M.C is allowed to that extent.