Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030004082025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./21/2025 Sh. Jakir Hussain S/o Habibur Rahman R/o Rangapara, Ward No. 4 Near Masjid Police Station - Rangapara District - Sonitpur Assam - 784505 and erstwhile R/o Tuikhuahtlang Aizawl, Mizoram (Presently in Judicial custody Central Jail, Tuivamit) VERSUS The State of Mizoram and 2 Ors. R/b the Public Prosecutor Mizoram 2:Dr. R. Lalnienga 3:Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram for R1 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN Date of hearing & judgment : 06.08.2025 Page No.# 2/4 JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 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 15.10.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl Judicial District, Mizoram. By the said order, the learned Court while allowing the petitioner to go on bail in connection with C&EO Case No. 5 of 2024 had made it subject to various conditions. 3. Amongst the said conditions, Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga has challenged two of the bail conditions to the effect that the petitioner was directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 50 lakhs to be deposited by cheque at Mizoram Rural Bank, Treasury Branch Account of the said Court and the other condition by which the petitioner was directed to furnish two sureties who have to be Gazetted Group ‘A’ Officers working under the Govt. of Mizoram and posted at Aizawl and duly certified by the controlling authority. 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 Page No.# 3/4 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. 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 15.10.2024 in connection with C&EO PS Case No. 5/2024 may be modified to the extent that the petitioner may furnish a bail bond of Rs. 2 lakhs. Page No.# 4/4 7. As far as the second condition is concerned, this Court finds it fit that the petitioner may furnish two local sureties one being a Government servant working in the State of Mizoram as has been provided in the other case. Rest of the conditions provided in the bail order dated 15.10.2024 would remain the same. This order may be read along with the order passed in Cr. Pet. No. 20 of 2025. 8. With these modifications, this petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant