JUDGMENT 1. - These two bail applications arc disposed of by this single order. They are in respect of FIR No. 14/82, dated May 16, 1982 of police station Chhipa Barod and No. 20/82, dated February 25. 1982 of police station Chhipa Barod, both for offence under section 397 IPC, under which these two accused were arrested alongwith one more accused namely, Hanif son of Kallu Khan. There are in all three cases registered against all these three accused persons. In one of the cases this court granted bail to both these accused, namely, Ram Prakash and Ram Baboo by order, dated December 17, 1984, while applications in other two cases are disposed of today. 2. Hanif has already been granted bail by the trial court. The bail application of Hanif which came up before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran on September 21, 1984 it was brought to his notice that there are three cases pending against him and he is an habitual offender yet he granted bail on the ground that the accused is in jail for a long period and no importance was given to the fact of pendency of three cases. When the other two accused moved the bail application after two months of grant of bail to Haneef in the same cases he rejected the same on the ground that there are three cases pending and itself is a ground to reject the bail application. These two orders of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran cannot be reconciled. He ought to have struck to one principle in the same case in respect of different accused persons when they were involved in the same case and in the identification parade there was similar evidence against all the three accused. Distinguishing the case of untenable and frivolous grounds has to be seriously viewed. In these bail applications which have been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Baran on the same day i.e. 29-11-84 there were grounds existing before him for releasing these two accused persons also on bail as he had already shown indulgence to Haneef. This superficial distinction made in the order is untenable in light of his own earlier order. In these bail applications which have been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Baran on the same day i.e. 29-11-84 there were grounds existing before him for releasing these two accused persons also on bail as he had already shown indulgence to Haneef. This superficial distinction made in the order is untenable in light of his own earlier order. Besides this, as Ram Prakash and Ram Baboo had already been granted bail in the third case by this court on 17-12-84 in my opinion, ends of justice would meet if they are ordered to be released on bail in these two cases also. 3. There is yet another ground for releasing the accused on bail. I am informed that the Addl. Sessions Judge has fixed the date for framing charge as late as 9-7-85. I have already said in one case earlier that long dates for framing charge should not be given. The accused must know the substance of accusation against him at the earliest. If the court is burdened with heavy work even then hearing of argument on charge and framing of of charge does not consume much of the time of the Court. The charge can be framed and thereafter a long date in continuation may be given for examining the witnesses even day to day put deferring the case for argument on charge so as to cause further delay in calling the evidence is uncalled for and unwarranted. The Addl. Sessions Judge would bear in mind in future that such long dates shall not be given for framing the charges. 4. Coming back on the question of bail I hereby order that the accused petitioners Ram Prakesh and Ram Baboo shall be released on bail in FIR No. 14/1982, dated Feb, 16, 1982 of P.S. Chhipa Barod and No. 20/82 dated February 25, 1982 of P.S. Chippa Barod provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties in the amount at Rs. 500000 each to the satisfaction of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran for their appearance in that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial in any other court. Two conditions are attached to the bail bonds of the accused petitioners. 10,000/- and two sureties in the amount at Rs. 500000 each to the satisfaction of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran for their appearance in that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial in any other court. Two conditions are attached to the bail bonds of the accused petitioners. One is that the accused petitioners shall report to the Circle Officer, Baran on March 1, and May I, 1985 and get them attendance marked and thereafter on July 9, 1985 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran. The second condition is that the accused petitioners shall not repeat a similar offence. If either of the conditions mentioned above is violated this bail order shall stand cancelled without reference to this court. A copy of this order may be sent to the Circle Officer, Baran.Bail granted. *******