Judgment G. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE accused petitioner moved a bail application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code which converted into section 439 Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Kasliwal has raised the preliminary objection that the application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code has been moved on 2 1. 9. 1983 while the accused was surrendered on 22. 9. 1983 so unless a fresh application under Section 419 is moved after surrendering the accused the application which was filed on 21. 9. 1983 can not be considered. ( 2 ) SHRI G. G. Sharma says that the accused was produced in Court on 2 1. 9. 1983 and according to the direction given by the Court the accused was produced before the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) who refused to take him into custody on the ground that no written order has been received from the Court with regard to taking the accused into custody. Then on 229. 1981 Shri G. G. Sharma again requested the Court and then the order was given to the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) for taking necessary steps in this matter. ( 3 ) ACTUALLY the accused was brought before this Court on 2 1. 9. 1983 and direction was given of Shri Sharma to surrender him before the Dy. Registrar (Judicial ). On that date the Deputy Registrar should have sent the accused to jail and if there was no written order, be could get it verified from the Court but implied of getting any clarification, no step was taken on 21. 9. 1983. When this fact was brought to the notice of this Court on 22. 9. 1983, specific order to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) was passed and then he sent the Accused to the Central Jail. When the accused was brought before this Court on 21. 9. 1983, the application under Section 439 was in the Office. It is a different matter that under some mis-under standing the accused was not taken into custody on 21. 9. 1983 but it does not mean that the application which was moved on 21. 9. 1983 alongwith the accused in Court cannot be considered on this account that the accused was sent to judicial custody on 22. 9. 1983. The objection raised by the Government Advocate is not accepted. ( 4 ) HEARD both learned counsel for the parties on the bail application. 9. 1983 alongwith the accused in Court cannot be considered on this account that the accused was sent to judicial custody on 22. 9. 1983. The objection raised by the Government Advocate is not accepted. ( 4 ) HEARD both learned counsel for the parties on the bail application. ( 5 ) SHRI Kasliwal has opposed the bail application. He has also opposed that the accused is of the age of 70 years. According to him as the age has been shown in the acquittal roll the accused is below sixty years of age. Apart from this, this is a case of entering into the house of the complainant after forming an unlawful assembly, inflicting injuries to the ladies and also forcibly taken away the balies from the ears, so this being a serious offence, bail should not be granted. ( 6 ) SHRI Sharma argues that the case of this petitioner and that of Ram Swaroop is similar one. Ram Swaroop has already been released on bail by this court. Apart from this, the accused is an old man and is patient and having blood-pressure. He has also submitted a medical certificate to this effect. ( 7 ) I have considered both arguments and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the bail application of the accused Bal Mukand is granted. ( 8 ) THE accused be released on bail on furnishing a security of Rs. 5,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerning judicial Magistrate of this case. The accused is directed to present at the police station as and when needed for investigation of this case and also on all subsequent dates of hearing when the challan is submitted in the court.