in imposing conditions must be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the accused's presence, and prevent the misuse of liberty to impede the investigation or obstruct justice. 17. Having gone through the impugned order, particularly the observations made by the High Court in paragraphs 5, 6, and 715, we find that while the Second Bail application of the appellants was under consideration, it was the police who took possession of the keys of the immovable property under an alleged voluntary application filed by the Mahant of Ram Suchi Sampradaya. We believe that this action by the police to take possession of immovable property reflects total lawlessness. Under no circumstances, can the police be allowed to interfere with the 15 Supra, Para 4possession of 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