order was moved before the learned Sessions Court and was heard by concerned Roster Judge, the petitioner had not sought deletion of the condition (a) imposed vide order dated 06.01.2024, but had sought only its modification to the extent that the amount be reduced and be adjusted against the amount that has already been paid by him or has been recovered by the police in the form of the car of the applicant. 13. Though one of the primary arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner is that such condition for grant of regular bail could not have been imposed by the learned Sessions Court, it is also the case of petitioner herein that he is ready to deposit amount of Rs. 6.10 lakhs before the learned Trial Court, and he may be released on interim bail so as to arrange the funds to meet the bail condition imposed upon him. A specific prayer regarding the same has also been made in the present petition. Further, only the order dated 01.02.2024, refusing to reduce the amount as directed to be paid vide bail order, has been challenged before this Court. 14. Thus, without going into the merits of the case, but considering the fact that it was submitted on behalf of petitioner/accused itself that he be granted bail as he was willing to deposit the alleged cheated amount and one of the co-accused had also been granted bail on similar grounds, and also considering the fact that the prayer before this Court in the petition as well as the prayer made before the learned Sessions Court by way of modification application was to the extent that the amount required to be deposited in the form of FDR with the learned Trial Court be reduced from Rs. 17.60 lakhs to Rs. 6.10 lakhs, and further taking note of the fact that car of the petitioner
