GUMAN MAL LODHA. J,—On 12-6-1986 an application signed by Shri K.K. Nagar, Advocate Aklera, District Jhalawar, was received by post in respect of one under trial prisonce Dharmender Singh. 2. It was mentioned that from 20-12-85 Dharmender Singh is in Judicial Lock-up in Aklera in pursuance of the order of S.D.M., Aklera for proceedings under section 110 Cr.P.C. He is kept injudicial lock up without a hearing for 30 days vide order dated 19-5-86 when another date was given for 18-6-86. The dates are not fixed within 15 days which is against law. 3. Yet another date was given in the order on the pretext that no surety of the petitioner was present. This fact is wrong. The S.D.M. is refusing to accept surety on one ground or the other. 4. On 2-6-86 the surety was present but this time the S. D. M. Aklera was on leave. The Assistant Collector-Cum-Executive Magistrate Shri Umaid Singh Rathore refused to accept the surety of Rs. 2,000/- after verification of the personal bond. 5. This letter-cum-Application was listed before this court and comments were required of S. D. M., Aklera who has admitted that from 20-12-85 Dharmender Singh is injudicial lock-up for proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. There is no person who can stand surety for this person...... bail was moved by Shri K.K. Nagar and order was given for bail Rs. 2,000/- but bail was not taken because he was wanted in an offence under Section 436 I.P.C. 6. A letter was received by Assistant Jailor that and Dharmender Singh has been acquitted in all cases and he is detained in a case under Section 110 Cr.P.C. therefore, he may be released on bail. On 24-6-86 the bail application was submitted by G. C. Trivedi Advocate and order of bail was passed. 7. Whether the non-applicant is still in jail or he has been released is not known. Letter of 12-8-86 of the S. D. M., Aklera no where mentions that he has been released. 8. In my considered opinion the present one is a case of abuse of process of court where when the surety came the bail bonds were not accepted on one pretext or the other, by the S.D.M. and Executive Magistrate. 9. Letter of 12-8-86 of the S. D. M., Aklera no where mentions that he has been released. 8. In my considered opinion the present one is a case of abuse of process of court where when the surety came the bail bonds were not accepted on one pretext or the other, by the S.D.M. and Executive Magistrate. 9. It is surprising and shocking that from 20-12-85 Dharmender Singh is languishing in jail, only for proceeding under Section 110 Cr.P.C., when he has been acquitted in all other cases of substantive offences, as per the report of the jailor of Jhalawar, and is prepared to submit bail bonds. 10. Obviously, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Executive Magistrate both have shown scant regard for liberty of a citizen. When the accused has been acquitted in all substantive offences and only proceeding under Section 110 Cr. P.C. were pending, he should not have been kept in judicial lock-up for such a long time. If there was no surety available than he should have been released on personal bond. 11. Depriving a citizen of liberty by proceeding under section 110 Cr. P.C. solely on the ground that no person is coming forth for giving surety or that some other cases, are pending, virtually tantamounts to making of unlawful effort to keep a citizen in jail for uncertain period. 12. The present one is a case where as per the report of the jailor, Jhalawar, the accused has been released in all cases of substantive offences and that being so, even if surety was not available, after such a long time of detention of the non-applicant Dharmender Singh should have been released on personal bond for appearance. 13. Consequently, while depreciating the conduct of the S.D.M., Aklera and the Executive Magistrate, Aklera in showing scant regard for the liberty of the citizen and compelling the non-petitioner to languish in jail and to face detention without trial, for such a long time, it is ordered that if any proceeding under Section 110 Cr.P.C. is yet pending against Dharmender Singh he should be released on personal bond of Rs. 1,000/- for his appearance in that case. 14. There is note of Advocate Shri K.K. Nagar that the sub-jailor, Aklera refused to get the application signed by Dharmender Singh. This conduct of sub-jailor again be deprecated. 1,000/- for his appearance in that case. 14. There is note of Advocate Shri K.K. Nagar that the sub-jailor, Aklera refused to get the application signed by Dharmender Singh. This conduct of sub-jailor again be deprecated. There is a constitutional protection and guarantee for permitted the legal assistance to citizen facing trials. Not to allow the under trial to send his complaint to the High Court by refusing to get a signature when the advocate wanted it, tentamounts to dereliction of duty and prima facie, if proved would be mis-conduct. The Inspector General of Prisons is required to take suitable action against the sub jailor after getting his explanation why he refused to get the signatures of Dharmender Singh on the application of Shri K.K. Nagar, dated 5-6-86. 15. A copy of the application alongwith this order should be sent to the Inspector General of Prisons for necessary action and the copy of this order should also be sent to the Chief Secretary for necessary action against S. D. M. and Executive Magistrate, after getting their explanation. 16. The S. D. M. Aklera should release Dharmender on personal bond as mentioned above, if he has not been released so far, on the same day, when he receives the order which should be sent with a special messenger to Aklera today and obtain a report of compliance from S. D. M. Aklera. 17. The fact whether Dharmender Singh has been released on personal bond or not on the day the order is received by the S. D. M. Aklera, with action taken be intimated by him by special messenger. 18. The Chief Secretary Inspector General of Prisons, should intimate this court of action taken as desired in the order of this Court within a period of two weeks of the date of the receipt of the judgment. A copy may be given also to learned Government Advocate for ensuring compliance. The Chief Secretary and the Inspector General of Prisons, should further circulate relevant extract of this judgment and instruct that there is no repetition and recurrence of such unlawful detention in future. 19. The application is accepted as indicated above.