V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) IN pursuance to a direction by this Court made on 11-7-85, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, is also present with his explanation. The same be kept on record. The record of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, is also produced and is perused. ( 2 ) THIS Court by its order dt. 3-7-1985, passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 589 of 1985, directed the applicants to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam refused to release them on bail on the ground that the order did not indicate the crime number in which the applicants were arrested and the bail-bonds were not accepted, resulting in non-compliance of this Court's order. The applicants again moved this Court ventilating their grievance of not being released for the omission indicated above. It was in such circumstances that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, was directed to appear before this Court on 15-7-1985 and the record of the Court was also sent for. The Magistrate accordingly appeared and submitted his explanation, which is taken on record. Although the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, has unconditionally apologised for his refusal to comply with the order of this Court, he has also added a para by way of explanation and tried to justify his action. Para 2 of his explanation reads as follows :"in this particular case, the undersigned wanted the clarification of the Crime number as usually the Jail authorities do not release the detained person unless the release order mentions the crime number or the case number and under such circumstances in the absence of such number, lot of delay is caused before. the accused is actually released from Jail. Only with a view to avoid such delay that the undersigned orally sought the clarification of the crime number so as to mention the same in the Release order and not with any other intention. "the record of this very case goes to show that in the bail order dt. 25-5-85, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, Camp at jaora, on bail application No. 1 of 1985, there is no mention of the Crime number yet the record shows that the person concerned, namely, Santoshilal, was released on bail. "the record of this very case goes to show that in the bail order dt. 25-5-85, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, Camp at jaora, on bail application No. 1 of 1985, there is no mention of the Crime number yet the record shows that the person concerned, namely, Santoshilal, was released on bail. Similarly, there is yet another order passed by this Court on 19-6-85 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 548 of 1985, in this very case, which also does not contain any reference to the crime number and yet there was no delay in release of the accused persons, who were directed to be released by this Court. Thus, the justification, which is sought to be advanced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam is absolutely baseless and cannot be accepted. ( 3 ) IT is not so much a matter of non-compliance of this Court's direction but the attitude and approach on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam and for that matter any Magistrate, who in utter disregard of the liberty of a citizen, delays the release of a prisoner on such trivial grounds, like non-mention of crime number. If there is any truth in the anxiety expressed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, that the Jail authorities do not release, it cannot be a matter of anticipation. If there be any such difficulty, it can only arise after putting the order of release in its implementation. Such speculation on the part of any Magistrate that for want of crime number the Jail authorities would not release a person is out of place. It is their duty to comply with the directions and in compliance of the direction if any difficulty in fact arises, to bring it to the notice of the superior Court or remedy the same if they can do it rather than delaying the release of a person on some fanciful notion or apprehension, which can hardly be said to be reasonable. No doubt the identity of the person to be released in pursuance of an order is to be there. But when the identity of the prisoner ordered to be released is not in dispute or doubt, asin this case, the insistence for having the 'crime number', to say the least, is wholly unjustified. No doubt the identity of the person to be released in pursuance of an order is to be there. But when the identity of the prisoner ordered to be released is not in dispute or doubt, asin this case, the insistence for having the 'crime number', to say the least, is wholly unjustified. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has neither cited any instance in his explanation, nor could he give any, when asked by this Court of belated release of a prisoner for want of crime number. The explanation submitted by him is wholly unsatisfactory and unconvincing. Even assuming it to be so, it does not stand to reason as to why the compliance of this Court's order should itself be deferred that too on such a trival ground. Instead of showing a live concern for liberty of a citizen, carrying out the order with all promptness and despatch as such orders ought to be carried out, and taking those erring authorities to task, who obstruct the execution of such orders, the Magistrate has preferred to defer the compliance of the order itself in anticipation of such obstruction, reminding of an ancient Nyaya ( 4 ) IN the instant case there was material enough for the Magistrate to ascertain the crime number, if he was that touchy about it, although there was absolutely no such necessity. It was because of this unreasonable attitude and approach that the release of the prisoners was delayed. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicants that another Magistrate, who was incharge of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam's Court has already released the applicants on bail. Therefore, no further direction as such is necessary. Hypertechnical view in matters, like bail, which directly relates to the liberty of a citizen, must always be avoided. The approach of the Magistrate in this case can hardly be said to be commendable for any Magistrate. It is not merely a warning to the Magistrate concerned but to all others as well of his kind, who possibly indulge in such delays by giving a play to their fanciful notions of crime numbers, which at times are not brought to the notice of the Court, much less to the accused-applicant, as the case-diaries are not produced and the release of the accused-applicant cannot and should not be delayed on that count. Orders of their release have of necessity to be passed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam is now directed to make a note that in future he should not ventilate such notions without any reason or rhyme in the discharge of his judicial functions. This sort of attitude on the part of judicial Magistrate is to be regretted. ( 5 ) SHRI A. H. Khan, learned Government Advocate intervening in the matter submitted that in view of the unconditional apology submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, he deserves to be leniently dealt with. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is, therefore, accordingly warned for future. It is the duty of every Magistrate, whether judicial or Executive, to see that citizen's liberty is not violated and his release from imprisonment not delayed. They should guard against such fanciful notions and unreasonable apprehensions. The liberty of an individual is a matter of great constitutional importance in our system of governance. It is the duty of every Magistrate as the custodian and sentinel on the ever vigilant guard of the freedom of an individual who has a precious right under the Constitution which cannot be taken away capriciously, arbitrarily or without legal justification. ( 6 ) WITH these observations this application stands fully disposed of. Certified copy of, this order be supplied to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges today. Order accordingly. .