JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under section 438 Cr. P C. for issuance of a direction to the Police Station, Kotwali, Tonk, that in the event of arrest, the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 2. An application under section 438 Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, which was rejected by him on June 13, 1980. An application under section 438 Cr.P.C. was moved before this Court which was dismissed as not pressed on June 26, 1980. 3. The brief facts of the case which are, relevant for the disposal of this application are that Bal Chand Soni lodged an F.I.R. on March 7, 1980 at about 6. P.M. Originally, a case under sections 147, and 323 I.P.C. was registered but later on, Section 324 I.P.C. was added. The complainant was initially examined on March 7, 1980 and later on again examined on March 16, 1980. It was also contended that Dr.S.S. Sarkar who examined the injured, described injuries of simple nature and more or less superficial on the surface of the skin. It was further contended that the complainant later on, filed a private complainant in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk on April 10, 1980, and in this complaint a clear case of an offence under Section 307 I P.C. was made out. It was further contended the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not follow the correct procedure and gave adjournments after adjournments. It was also contended that the injuries which have been received are also simple and do not make out any case under section 307 I.P.C. It was also contended that neither the F.I.R nor the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the face of it contained any averments making out an offence even remotely under Section 307 I.P.C. It was also contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in remarking that the alleged accused was absconding because the accused was already on bail and that he could not imagine that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate would convert the case under Section 307 I.P.C. and to order that the accused petitioner be taken into custody and it was only by chance that he was absent and when he returned he found that the said order was pronounced to the great prejudice to the petitioner without even hearing him and this was contrary to law. It has also been contended that the accused-petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated with the sole ulterior motive of being subjected to undue and uncalled- for harassment and humiliation It was also contended that the accused petitioner is an old man and respectable citizen of the society. 4. Mrs Kamla Jain, learned Public- Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the issuance of a direction under section 438 Cr. P.C. 5. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. At this stage it is neither expedient nor proper to express any opinion regarding the merits and demerits of the prosecution case. Taking an over all view of the entire facts and circumstances Of the ease, it does not appear unreasonable to issue a direction u/s 438 Cr.P.C. to the S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali, Tonk, that in the event of arrest the accused petitioner Prahlad son of Jai Gopal be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety of like amount to appear before the S.H.O. concerned. The accused petitioner is hereby directed to present himself before the investigating agency whenever called upon to do so for the purposes of interrogation. The accused-petitioner shall not, in any way, try to tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave this country without the written permission of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. Provided further that if the accused-petitioner breaks and of these conditions then the prosecution would be at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail.Bail granted. *******