immovable property, as such action does not bear sanction by any provision of law. 18. Therefore, we conclude that the High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in para 7 of the impugned order by imposing the conditions of demolishing the wall at the expense of the appellants and handing over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant. 19. In this case, the conditions imposed clearly tantamount to deprivation of civil rights, rather than measures to ensure the accused's presence during trial. Therefore, the conditions imposed by the High Court in the highlighted extract of paragraph 716 of the impugned order, are hereby set aside. 20. We further make it clear that none of the observations made in the order dated 25th July, 2024, or this order shall prejudice the rights of the parties in the pending civil suit17. 21. The appellants shall continue to remain on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, with one surety of the like amount,