had forcibly broken into the premises of the complainant being the registered owner of the property and caused injuries to him and his family members, the High Court was fully justified in imposing the conditions as set out 10 Supra, Note 9in the impugned order, while extending indulgence of bail to the appellants. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The issue that requires our attention is as to whether the High Court exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Section 439 CrPC by imposing onerous and unreasonable conditions unrelated to the grant of bail, to be specific, the direction for removal of the wall at the expense of the appellants and handing over possession of the disputed property to the complainant. 12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in “Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of