- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments of case. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that offence alleged against petitioners is triable by a court of 1st Class Magistrate; no recovery is to be made from petitioners in the matter; petitioners have been falsely implicated in present case; there is no other previous case registered against petitioner no.2, whereas petitioner no.1 had only one case of similar nature registered against him in the year 2009; petitioners would undertake not to indulge in any such or other offence in future. Trial of the case may take a long. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
(2.) AFTER considering all facts and circumstances of case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to release accused-petitioners, namely, (1) Imran Son of Ashu, Resident of Naugava, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar and (2) Sumerdeen Son of Samsudeen, Resident of Mayapur, Police Station Tapukada, District Alwar (presently confined in Sub Jail Kishangarhbas, Alwar) on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in FIR No.58/2011, Police Station Kishangarhbas, District Alwar, for offence under Section 379 IPC, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15000/- each to satisfaction of trial court for their appearance on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. However, in case petitioners are again found indulging in similar or any other offence at any point of time in future, the bail granted to them by this court in present case would be liable to be cancelled at instance of prosecution on this ground alone and stipulation to this effect shall be inserted in bail bonds produced by petitioners, and sureties to be produced in support thereof shall be verified by Tehsildar of area concerned. The bail application stands disposed of.;