Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57320 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12996 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajdeep Alias Chandul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed to direct the trial court/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Varanasi to remove the condition imposed for bail bond in order dated 16.10.2024 passed in S.T. No.49 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.165 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Adampur, District Varanai. 3. Facts giving rise to present controversy are that the applicant was convicted under Sections 498A, 304 IPC in Session Trial No. 49 of 2016 vide judgement and order dated 30.07.2018, passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.6, Varanasi. Against that judgement, an appeal was preferred before this High Court which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.5630 of 2018 in which the applicant was granted bail on 10.09.2024 with condition that the appellant will furnish personal bonds and two sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned. In pursuance of that bail order, the court below while releasing the applicant imposed the conditions that the applicant will furnish a bond of Rs.2 lakh along with two sureties and one of them should be family member of the applicant which is under challenge. 4. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that all the family members have been convicted in the same session trial under Sections 498A, 304B IPC, therefore, no family member is available as on date to give surety for the applicant. In such circumstances, the applicant is unable to furnish surety of family member. Consequently, despite the bail order dated 10.09.2024 passed by this High Court, the applicant is still in jail. He further submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, has observed that bail condition should not be excessive or arbitrary, therefore, the aforesaid condition may be modified. 5. Though the learned AGA opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact that High Court while releasing the applicant on bail in Criminal Appeal no. 5630 of 2018 has not imposed such condition of taking one surety from family members of applicant. 6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of report, it appears that the applicant has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5630 of 2018 vide order dated 10.09.2024. In that bail order, no such condition has been mentioned that one surety must be from the family member of the applicant. As the applicant has stated in affidavit, all the family members have been convicted along with applicant under Section 498A 304B IPC, therefore, no surety belong to the family of the applicant is available, therefore, such condition imposed by the applicant is excessive. Therefore, considering the fact that the applicant has already been granted bail vide order dated 10.09.2024 by the High Court and he is still in jail for long time and no family member is available to furnish surety, therefore, condition in the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Varanasi, to the extent that furnish one surety belongs to a family of the applicant, is modified and it is directed that if the applicant furnishes two sureties, then he shall be released on fulfilling other conditions of bail order. 7. In view of above, the present application is allowed. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 A.Kr. Digitally signed by :- AJAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad