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 10.06.2024 passed by the District and Session Judge, Aizawl, Mizoram. By the said order, the learned Court while allowing the petitioner to go on bail in connection with C&EO Case No. 3 of 2024 had made it subject to various conditions. 3. Amongst the said conditions, Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga has challenged three of the bail conditions to the effect that the petitioner was directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 50 lakhs, he was directed to appear every day at 9 AM or at such frequency and time as may be directed by the police as well as the direction that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the SP, CID, Aizawl or re-locate from his present address which was given in the police records without the permission of the police. 4. It is a settled proposition of law that imposing onerous condition while granting bail amounts to denial of bail and that 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 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. 5. 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. 6. In the instant case, it is stated at the bar by both the counsels that it is an admitted fact that most of the Bank Accounts of the petitioners were freezed by the I.O in view of the instant case and as such, it is in the opinion of the Court that asking the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 50 lakhs is unfair in the facts of the case and the same is too exorbitant. Since the petitioner is involved in the same case for which he was granted bail with the condition that he should furnish a bail bond of Rs. 2 lakhs, the same may also be provided here. As such, this Court directs that the condition No. 1 provided in the bail order dated 10.06.2024 in connection with C&EO PS Case No. 3/2024 may be modified to the extent that the petitioner may furnish a bail bond of Rs. 2 lakhs. 7. As far as the second condition, by which the learned Court had directed the petitioner to report to the Crime and Economic Offences Police Station, CID (Crime), everyday at 9:00 AM or at such frequency and time as may be directed by the police is concerned, this Court deems it fit to modify the said condition to the extent as has been already modified in the other cases that the petitioner shall report to the I.O every alternate day till he finds an accommodation for himself in Aizawl. It has already been stated in the other case that the petitioner had no present address in the State of Mizoram as he has been evicted from his house after his arrest. His family members have also left the State of Mizoram and are now staying in Assam and in that view of the matter as directed in the other case, the petitioner is directed to report to the I.O every alternate day. 8. As far as the third condition is concerned, wherein the petitioner was directed not to leave the jurisdiction of the SP, CID, Aizawl 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 is 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. Rest of the conditions provided in the bail order dated 10.06.2024 would remain the same. This order may be read along with the order passed in Cr. Pet. No. 20 of 2025. 9. In view of the modifications above, this petition is disposed of.