JUDGMENT 1. - The above five criminal miscellaneous petitions under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, have been filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pokaran passed in C. R. Nos. 13/75, 55/75, 53/78, 13/79 and 11/80. As common questions are involved they are being disposed of by common order. 2. The four accused petitioners, Narain son of Bholu Meena, Sunda alias Jagdish son of Surja, Ramsingh alias Birbal son of Banu, and Bannaram alias Baneysingh son of Gula were wanted in many cases of Police Station, Pokaran and other police stations and almost all the cases were under sections 380 and 457, Indian Penal Code. In the three F. I. R. C. R. Nos. 13/75, 53/78 and 13/79 of Police Station Pokaran the four above named accused persons were in judicial custody for more than three months, and, therefore, on application by the accused persons the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 9-9-1980 ordered that the accused persons be discharged provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs 2,000/- each and a surety in the like amount. Similarly in C. R. No. 55/75, Police Station, Pokaran it was expressed on behalf of the accused-petitioners that they were in judicial custody for more than four months and a report under section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure has not yet been filed. The learned Magistrate ordered that the accused persons shall be set at liberty provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- In C. R. No. 11/80 also inspite of the fact that more than three months had elapsed no charge sheet has been filed, and, therefore, it was ordered by the learned Magistrate on September 9, 1980 that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- each and a surety in the like amount the accused petitioners shall be discharged. A similar order was passed in connection with C. R. No. 9/80, but no petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed against that order. 3. The grievance of the petitioners in all the petitions is that the accused persons could not arrange for sureties being the persons of no means, and, therefore, inspite of the fact that they were ordered to be released on their furnishing sureties, they have not been able to furnish the same. 3. The grievance of the petitioners in all the petitions is that the accused persons could not arrange for sureties being the persons of no means, and, therefore, inspite of the fact that they were ordered to be released on their furnishing sureties, they have not been able to furnish the same. It is a fit case in which the learned Magistrate should have ordered the release of the accused persons only on their personal bonds and should not have called upon them also to furnish sureties. 4. It is given out by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners that a charge sheet has not yet been filed and it is not known how much more time will be taken by the investigating agency to file the charge sheet, and whether any charge sheet is at all to be filed against them. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there is no evidence in any of the cases to connect the accused with the crimes. 5. It does not appear that any prayer was made before the learned Magistrate that there was no material against the accused persons warranting their detention, and as such that should be discharged. The learned Magistrate therefore had no occasion to apply his mind as to whether the case was such where no evidence has yet been found against any of the accused persons. Therefore it does not appear to be just and proper while exercising jurisdiction under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to say as to whether there is any evidence against the accused persons or not, but looking to the fact that these very accused persons in some other cases by the Court of Magistrate at Jodhpur had been ordered to be released on their furnishing personal bonds, and they have not been able to furnish sureties inspite of the order by the learned Magistrate, it appears to be proper to order that the accused petitioners should be released only on their furnishing personal bonds instead of personal bonds and sureties. It may be observed here that so far as petition No. 174/80 is concerned, which relates to C. R. No. 55/75, the learned Magistrate in his order dated 9-9-1980 has already ordered that the accused persons be released on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. It may be observed here that so far as petition No. 174/80 is concerned, which relates to C. R. No. 55/75, the learned Magistrate in his order dated 9-9-1980 has already ordered that the accused persons be released on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- each, and therefore, there is a need of any modification in the order of the learned Magistrate so far as C. R. No. 55/75 is concerned. So far as C. R. Nos. 13/75, 53/78, 13/79 and 11/80 are concerned the orders of the learned Magistrate dated 9-9-1980 needs modification in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and or to secure the ends of justice. 6. In the result, Miscellaneous petitions Nos. 165/1980, 161/1980, 172/19(8 and 173/1980 are allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate in each of the C.RS Nos. 13/75,53/78, 13/79 and 11/80 is modified to the extent that the accused persons shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/-. So far as petition No. 174/80 relating to C. R. No. is concerned, for the reasons already stated, the same is dismissed. Sd/- M.B. Sharma, J.Order Modified. *******