JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under Sections 439, 440 (1) and 482 Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer dated 8th March, 1978. 2. The accused-petitioner Arvind Kumar is facing trial of the offences under Section 170, 406, 419, 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer by his order dated 8th March, 1978, ordered that the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each. It was further directed that the sureties should be the resident of Rajasthan holding property in the district of Ajmer. It is against these two restrictions that the present petition has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has contended that the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer on 19th October, 1977, in case No. 857/1974, directed the accused to be released on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer (West). In this order, it was contended, no such conditions were imposed that the sureties must be of Rajasthan holding property within the district of Ajmer. Reliance was placed on Raghunandan v. Emperor, AIR 1922 All 489 , wherein it was held that an order directing an accused person to produce sureties residing within a certain limit is illegal, because Magistrate has no authority to lay down any limits within which sureties must reside. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in S. B. Criminal Revision No. 588 of 1972 Lal Chand v. State (A photostat copy of this' judgment has been produced). In this case placing reliance on Raghunandan v. Emperor, AIR 1922 All 489 , it was held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to place a restriction that the surety should reside within the jurisdiction of that Court. Attention of this court was also drawn to the order dated 17th January, 1978, in S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 454/1977 Mohd. Jatneei Quareshi v. State. A similar order has also been passed in S. B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 452 of 1977, Mohammed Jameel Quareshi v. State of Rajasthan. Attention of this court was also drawn to the order dated 17th January, 1978, in S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 454/1977 Mohd. Jatneei Quareshi v. State. A similar order has also been passed in S. B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 452 of 1977, Mohammed Jameel Quareshi v. State of Rajasthan. In this order, it was stated that the persons appearing as sureties for the accused should belong to Rajasthan end must have their properties within the territorial limits of Ajmer district. It was, therefore, contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the restrictions which have been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge regarding the residence of the sureties and that they should have properties in the district of Ajmer are without jurisdiction. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the Court has jurisdiction to impose such conditions. 5. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully persued. 6. The question whether while exercising powers under Sections 439, Cr.P.C. restrictions regarding the residence of the sureties and their holding properties within the specified territorial jurisdiction could be legally imposed. This matter came up for consideration before His Lordship of the Allahabad High Court, who held that no such restrictions could be imposed. Reference may be made to Raghunandan v. Emperor AIR 1922 All 489 , A similar matter arose before this Court also, and it was held that such restrictions cannot be imposed. In the decision of this Court dated 17th January, 1978 (Supra), this question never came for decision. While Issuing an order for enlarging the accused-petitioner a condition was imposed that the sureties must belong to Rajasthan and that they should have their properties within the territorial limits of Ajmer district.As a matter of fact, in view of these circumstances it cannot be said that there is a conflict of opinion between the two judgments of this Court. In the latter judgement this question was never agitated before the Court and as such no order was passed on that particular aspect of the matter. The intent and purpose of enlarging an accused is to secure his attendance before the Court so that he may be available to undergo the sentence so awarded to him. In the latter judgement this question was never agitated before the Court and as such no order was passed on that particular aspect of the matter. The intent and purpose of enlarging an accused is to secure his attendance before the Court so that he may be available to undergo the sentence so awarded to him. The restrictions regarding the residence of the sureties and their holding properties within a specified territorial limits has not been envisaged by any of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. All that is intended is that the accused must furnish solvent sureties to the extent of the specified pecuniary solvency. As a matter of fact, placing of such restrictions may mean an additional restriction on the individual liberty and freedom of the accused which the law never envisaged. 7. For the reasons stated above, the application is hereby allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer is set aside to this extent only that the sureties must belong to Rajasthan and that they should have properties within the territorial limits of Ajmer district. The accused-petitioner would be entitled to furnish proper and solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. *******