JUDGMENT : SHAMIMA JAHAN, J. Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C Zoramchhana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram, appearing for respondent No. 1. 2. This application has been filed under Section 528 read with Section 438 & 442 of the BNSS for modification of the Order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Aizawl Judicial District, Mizoram. By the said order, the learned Court while allowing the petitioner to go on bail had made it subject to certain conditions:- (1) The petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 2 lakhs to be deposited in the Account Branch. (2) The petitioner shall furnish two reliable sureties who are regular Government servants posted in the area lying within Aizawl Judicial District. (3) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court or re-locate from his present address which was given in the police record without the permission of this court. (4) The petitioner shall not influence witnesses or cause directly or indirectly, the destruction or disappearance of any material as may be felt by the Police to have evidential value. (5) If the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions of the bail order, he may be arrested in similar or any other offences punishable under the law and that his bail shall also be liable to be cancelled. With these 5 (five) conditions, the learned Court had granted bail to the petitioner vide Order dated 22.05.2025. 3. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by filing this petition seeks modification not in respect of all the five conditions but in respect of two of the conditions, by which the petitioner was directed to furnish two reliable sureties who are regular Government servant posted in the area lying within Aizawl Judicial District as well as the direction given to the petitioner not to re-locate his address, which was given in the police records without the permission of the Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the bail order was given in a month of May 2025, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the conditions and as such, he is not able to get any relief even though the bail was granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the bail order was given in a month of May 2025, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the conditions and as such, he is not able to get any relief even though the bail was granted. He submits that the petitioner has not been able to get two reliable sureties who have to be regular Government servants working in the area in view of the fact that he has been made the prime accused in a scam involving 150 crores of public money. Learned counsel also submits that the place where he was living before the instant occurrence which was also recorded in a police records is no longer his present address since the owner of the said house had evicted him from them. He also states that the family who was also with him in the said rented place, left the same and are presently staying in the State of Assam, more specifically in the District of Tezpur (Sonitpur). As such, he prays that the said conditions may be modified in the interest of justice. 5. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, in order to substantiate his argument has placed reliance on the following cases:- (1) Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi , reported in (2000) 2 SCC 66 , by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that keeping in prison, the accused person for a long period, in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It was also observed that if there is any failure to raise funds with regard to the bail bond, the Court could have directed the appellant to substitutes him with excessive bail conditions imposed is not appreciable and that granting of bail is an enough proof that the accused may not languish in jail and that the excessive bail conditions imposed upon the accused was modified on the ground that the same would result in refusal to the grant of bail. (2) Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the refusal of bail to an un-convicted person is unfair. (2) Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the refusal of bail to an un-convicted person is unfair. (3) Moti Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47 , by which the Apex Court had observed that asking the accused person who was a Mason to furnish sureties of Rs. 10,000 is shocking. (4) Girish Gandhi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2024) 10 SCC 674 , by which the Apex Court had observed that the principle is that the excessive bail is no bail and to grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is like taking away with the left hand, what is given with the right. (5) Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI , reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 , by which the Apex Court had observed that imposing a condition which is impossible of compliance would be defeating the very object of the release. (6) Hani Nishad vs. State of U.P , reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3946, by which the Hon’ble Apex Court had modified the conditions of the bail by making it applicable to other cases which were 31 in numbers against the applicant. (7) Police Strategy for Grant of Bail, IN RE. , reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685 , by which the Apex Court had observed that if bail bonds are not furnished within one month from the grant of bail, the Court may take up the case suo moto and modify the conditions. 6. Mr. C Zoramchhana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, however vehemently objects to the modification of the said conditions on the ground that the petitioner being involved in such a big scam would likely to abscond if those conditions are not fulfilled. He as such supports the conditions therein that the two sureties, who have to be regular Government servant posted in Aizawl, are required in the facts of the case. He also submits that allowing the petitioner to re-locate his address would give him an opportunity to him to abscond from the State of Mizoram, more so from the city of Aizawl. 7. He also submits that allowing the petitioner to re-locate his address would give him an opportunity to him to abscond from the State of Mizoram, more so from the city of Aizawl. 7. He also submits that the case is very serious in nature and that strict conditions were as such put while allowing bail to the petitioner and the same is permissible in the facts of the case. He also stated that the applicants while praying for bail had agreed to whatever conditions are put to them and that now turning around and challenging the conditions, cannot be allowed under the inherent power of this Court. He has relied on the Judgment passed in the case of Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. Vs. Vithal Damuji Meher, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 753 , by which the Apex Court had observed that a cases of economic nature or offences affecting a large number of people and where the accused who had an active role in the said offence seeks bail, than conditions must be strict and there can be additional conditions too. The relevant portion of the said case may be reproduced below:- “24. In cases where the allegations coupled with the materials brought on record by the investigation and in the nature of economic offence affecting a large number of people reveal the active role of the accused seeking anticipatory or regular bail, it would be fit for the Court granting such bail to impose appropriately strict and additional conditions. In the present case, even that has not been done as the High Court has imposed usual conditions simpliciter: “8. The applicant be released on bail in connection with Crime 217/2019, registered with Police Station Kotwali, Nagpur, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 478, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, on executing PR bond of Rs. 16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount. 9. The applicant shall attend Economic Offences Wing, Nagpur as and when required by the Investigating Officer. 10. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any attempt to influence the witnesses or otherwise tamper with the evidence. 11. The applicant shall not leave the country without the permission of the trial Court.” 8. On these submissions, the ld. 9. The applicant shall attend Economic Offences Wing, Nagpur as and when required by the Investigating Officer. 10. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any attempt to influence the witnesses or otherwise tamper with the evidence. 11. The applicant shall not leave the country without the permission of the trial Court.” 8. On these submissions, the ld. Counsel prays that no modifications may be allowed in the instant case. 9. Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that she has objection with regard to modification of the condition No. 2 given in the bail order and that she submits that modification to the said condition can only be in terms, that the petitioner although may be allowed to re-locate the address but he may do so within a short period of time and till then, he may appear before the police station every alternate day. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that imposing onerous condition while granting bail amounts to denial of bail and the same undermines the Fundamental Right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The conditions as has been held by the Apex Court in a number of decisions must be rational, reasonable and not burdensome to the accused person so as to render the bail meaningless. It was also held that conditions which are impossible to comply would violate the accused’s Right to Liberty. The conditions which are required to be given were only to ensure presence of the accused person in trial and for preventing him from tampering with the evidence and also for preventing him from absconding but at the same time it cannot be arbitrary which would infringe on the Fundamental Rights of the accused. It be again stated here that whether the condition is onerous or not would again depend on the facts and circumstances such as financial status of the accused as well as other difficulties. It is also held by the Apex Court that giving onerous conditions and then putting the accused person in a position to challenge the same is a misuse of judicial process. 11. In Girish Gandhi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra), it was observed that excessive financial deposits, and multiple sureties across the jurisdiction are considered onerous. It is also held by the Apex Court that giving onerous conditions and then putting the accused person in a position to challenge the same is a misuse of judicial process. 11. In Girish Gandhi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra), it was observed that excessive financial deposits, and multiple sureties across the jurisdiction are considered onerous. Further, it is the law of the land that the accused person is considered innocent till he is convicted and that the bail conditions should not negate the said presumption or result in prolonged detention due to non-compliance of the conditions mentioned therein. 12 . It is noticed in the present case that the petitioner was granted bail in the month of May 2025 and he is not able to comply with the conditions given in the bail order and as such, he is under detention till date i.e. more than two months inside the jail, which is deprecated by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments. The condition that the accused has to comply with, i.e. furnishing of two reliable sureties who are Government servants posted in the area lying within Aizawl District is in the considered opinion of the Court is too harsh inasmuch as it is known to all sundry that the accused is involved in such a big financial scam in the State of Mizoram or more so in Aizawl and in that facts getting two sureties being regular Government servants posted in Aizawl would be a difficulty or rather an impossibility. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the said condition is modified to the extent that the petitioner would furnish two local sureties one being a Government Servant working in the State of Mizoram. 13. The petitioner had also challenged the second condition in which he was directed not to leave the jurisdiction of this Court and not to re-locate his address recorded in the police records without the permission of the Court. It is noticed and it has been submitted by the counsels at the bar that the petitioner has been evicted from the place where he was staying before the occurrence took place and that the said address given in the police records are no longer his present address. It is noticed and it has been submitted by the counsels at the bar that the petitioner has been evicted from the place where he was staying before the occurrence took place and that the said address given in the police records are no longer his present address. It is also stated that the family of the petitioner who were also staying in the said address had also left the same and are presently staying in the State of Assam. As such, it is in the opinion of the Court that the said condition also requires modification. Since there is no specific place where the petitioner can stay at present in Aizawl, it is as such directed that the petitioner would find a place in Aizawl for his stay and till he finds a suitable place for accommodation, the petitioner would report to the police officer every alternate day and once he finds the said new place, he will inform the same to the police who will then record the said address in the police records and thereafter, if he desires to leave the jurisdiction of Court, he would take permission from the said Court. 14. It is also noticed that the accused is involved in three numbers of cases and they are Aizawl PS Case No. 96/2024, C&EO PS Case No. 5/2024 and C&EO PS Case No. 3/2024. 15. It be stated here that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hani Nishad vs. State of U.P (supra) had observed in the facts of the said case that the petitioner was involved in 31 numbers of cases and the Hon’ble Apex Court had modified the bail conditions therein and had directed the same to hold good for all 31 cases. 16. Further in Girish Gandhi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (supra) the Apex Court had observed in the said case that the petitioner was involved in cases spreading over six States in the Country and that he was faced with the situation where he could not be enlarged on bail in view of sureties as well as other conditions ordered in multiple cases in all the States and the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the petitioner may comply with the conditions which will hold good for all FIRs in the States and the same conditions were allowed to stand in all other States. 17. 17. As such, it is directed that the petitioner would furnish two local sureties one being a Government Servant working in the State of Mizoram in place of Condition No. 1 in the bail order dated 22.05.2025 and with regard to Condition No. 2, the petitioner would find a place in Aizawl for his stay and till he finds a suitable place for accommodation, the petitioner would report to the police officer every alternate day and once he finds the said new place, he will inform the same to the police who will then record the said address in the police records and thereafter, if he desires to leave the jurisdiction of Court, he would take permission from the said Court. 18. The other conditions mentioned in the said bail order dated 22.05.2025 remains as it is. With these modifications, this criminal petition is disposed of.