JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sharma, on behalf of the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that originally a case war registered under Section 302 I.P C., but after investigation the police suspected that Mst. Nathi, had committed suicide and the present petitioners were abettors in the commission of suicide. The applicants then moved an application for bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. before this Court. On 15-4-80 this court was pleased to release the applicants on bail. Thereafter the uncle of the deceased filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate, who after recording some statements took cognizance under Section 302 and issued a warrant of arrest for appearance of the applicants in his court. Under these circumstances the applicants have filed present application under Section 438 Cr PC. 2. It is contended by Mr. Dave, that in the F.I.R. there was an allegation only against one Baldev Babaji, and the petitioners were named in the F I.R. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate, himself on an earlier occasion on the basis of F I R. and other statements recorded during investigation committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions under Section 306 I.P.C. It is thus, contended that it was not a proper for the learned Magistrate, to have registered the case under Section 302 I.P C. on the same facts and to have summoned the applicants by a warrant of arrest when they were released on bail by the High Court on 15-4-80. On the other hand the application is opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the police did not make a proper investigation and converted a case under Section 302 I.P.C. into 306 I.P.C. When the police did not take any interest in the matter then the complainant approached the learned Magistrate, who after recording the statements of same witnesses arrived to the conclusion that the case ought to have been registered under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage. However, the fact remains that the petitioners had been released by this Court on bail on 15-4-80. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage. However, the fact remains that the petitioners had been released by this Court on bail on 15-4-80. I am not concerned with the merits of the order taking cognizance under Section 302 I P.C. in addition to 306, but in my view when the case was challenged under Section 306 I.P.C. Only initially, and this court had also released the applicants on bail, in the interest of justice the applicants are entitled to be released on bail The applicants Ramesh s/o Monaram, Ramesh s/o Sohanlal and Mabansingh s/o Harnarain are directed to be released on bail in the event of their arrest provided each one of them furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur subject to the following conditions : (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; and (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly, or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. 4. In the event of any breach of the above conditions it will be open to the trial court to cancel the bail if applied.Bail granted. *******