JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been directed seeking modification in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, dated June 6, 1985, whereby he granted bail to the accused, but directed that the accused-petitioner should submit a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount and further that the surety should be the resident of Tonk District. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that this order requires interference on two counts. Firstly that the amount of the personal bond and surety bond is highly excessive and secondly that the learned Sessions Judge could not have forced that the petitioner to bring a surety from Tonk District, particularly bemuse the accused petitioner is a resident of Bundi and then no discrimination can be made between a domicile of one place and the domicile of another place. 3. I have perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The anticipatory bail was sought for in a case under section 420 IPC where the Bank is alleged to have been cheated for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Once the court thought it proper that the case is fit for grant of anticipatory bail it was incumbent upon the court to have teen the workable feasibility of the order. Directing a party to bring a surety for Rs. 30,000/-and that too to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer is virtually refusing the bail because it can hardly be expected of a S.H.O. that he will accept the surety bond of a person to the tune of Rs. 30,000 without asking him to run from pillar to post and bring strict proof regarding solvency and even if surety files an affidavit the same would not be accepted. There is every likelihood that accused-petitioner would be harassed. It may so happen that if the accused goes with the surety to the Police Station and offers a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 30,000/-and produces the surety the solvency may not be accepted ex facie and the accused may be detained. In that case the very purpose of granting anticipatory bail would be frustrated. It may so happen that if the accused goes with the surety to the Police Station and offers a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 30,000/-and produces the surety the solvency may not be accepted ex facie and the accused may be detained. In that case the very purpose of granting anticipatory bail would be frustrated. Secondly while granting the hail, much less anticipatory bail, criteria is not the amount for which the cheating has been done, but the very purpose is to secure attendance of the accused and that there is moral force behind the person as well. It is often noticed that when the accused at times remains absent and the bail bonds and surety bonds are ordered to be forfeited, a nominal amount is realised in cases where the accused re-appears and thus, no such orders need he passed which in the long run are followed in breach rather than in observance. In my opinion an amount of Rs. 30,000/-with one surety in the like amount is virtually negativing the indulgence granted to the accused, this amount deserves to be substantially reduced. I, therefore, direct that the amount of rupees 30,000/-be reduced to that of Rs. 5,000/-with one surety in the like amount. 4. So far as the insistence on the local surety is concerned, the court cannot insist upon a local surety It may however, in extra-ordinary cases ask for the sureties which are easily accessable and at the same time ask for bringing a certificate of solvency from the Tehsildar. Still it may not be understood that in every case the solvency certificate from the Tehsildar must be insisted upon. On the contrary their Lordships of the Supreme Court had said times without number that even an affidavit in the first instance should not be refused. In Motiram v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1594 it has been held as under : "It shocks one's conscience to ask a masen like the petitioner to furnish sureties for Rs. 10,000/-, The Magistrate must be given the benefit of doubt for not fully appreciating that our Constitution, enacted by "We, the People of India", is meant for the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker-shall we add, the bonded labour and pavement dweller. 10,000/-, The Magistrate must be given the benefit of doubt for not fully appreciating that our Constitution, enacted by "We, the People of India", is meant for the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker-shall we add, the bonded labour and pavement dweller. To add insult to injury, the Magistrate has demanded sureties from his own District (We assume the allegation in the petition). What is a Malayalees, Kannadiga, Tamil or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or theft or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair, Pahalgum or Chandni Chowk? He cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know any one there and might have come in a batch or to seek a job or in a morcha. Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surest achieved by such provincial allergies. What law prescribes the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court district? This tendency takes many forms, some times, geographic, sometimes linguistic, sometimes legalistic. Article 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Article 350 sanctions representation to any authority, including a court, for redress of grievances in any language used in the Union of India. Equality before the law implies that even a vakalat or affirmation made in any State language according to the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India save where a valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an advice will be unfree in Free India, and likewise many other minorities. This divagation has become necessary to still the judicial beginnings, and to inhibit the process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj is nude of united stuff". 5. In the light of the aforesaid decision I direct that the surety from Tonk District shall not be insisted upon. The impugned order is accordingly modified. 6. Consequently the application k allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk dated June 6, 1985 is modified to the extent that in place of amount of Rs. 30,000/-it will be read as Rs 5,000/-and the condition about a surety from Tonk District is deleted. *******