JUDGMENT 1. - This is second Bail Application under S. 438 Cr. P.C. Two samples were obtained from two different parties on successive days in town of Jhunjhunu by Sh. Tarachand Saharan, SDM Jhunjhunu and Shri Subhash Singh Kumaway, Enforcement Inspector, Jhunjhunu. One firm was M/s. Ramchand Sureshchand, Jhunjhunu; while other is Vishvakarma Automobiles of which the petitioners are the partners. Both of them moved Anticipatory Bail Applications before the Sessions Judge, which were rejected and thereafter both of them filed applications before this court. S.B. Misc. Cr. Bail Application No. 400/86 was listed before my brother Hon'ble G.G. Sharma, J. which did not find favour with him and was rejected. However, the bail application No. 398/86 was listed before me, but the file of he bail application No. 400/86 was not tagged. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties directed the accused to be released on Bail. In fact this fact should have been brought to may notice that earlier bail application had been rejected particularly when the same learned counsel had appeared had appeared in the case in which the bail application has been rejected. However, second bail application was moved by the petitioners on n the ground that I have already granted bail to Rameshchand & Sureshchand vide orderdated 17.7.86 and in order to maintain parity, bail should also be granted to the petitioners. This is not normally my practice to entertain the second application foe Anticipatory Bail and, therefore, I directed the case to be listed before the same bench which rejected the earlier application. The order passed by me on 26.9.86 was in consonance with the High Court Rules where the second application on the same subject matter has ordinarily to be heard by the same bench. However, Hon'ble G.K. Sharma, J. Vide his order dated 16.10.86 said that he could only hear the bail in case Chief Justice would have referred the file to him and in his opinion such order could not be passed by this court. I do not want to indulge into that controversy in a bail application though, I may observe that the rules framed by the High Court and order passed thereunder cannot even subsequently be changed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on Administrative side as the order passed by the Court in a given case is Judicial order. I do not want to indulge into that controversy in a bail application though, I may observe that the rules framed by the High Court and order passed thereunder cannot even subsequently be changed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on Administrative side as the order passed by the Court in a given case is Judicial order. However, since I have already taken a view by grating bail in bail application No. 398/86 and in extraordinary circumstance in which I am placed due to order dated 16.10.86, I grant indulgence to the petitioners and accordingly I allow this application. 2. The SHO/Arresting Officer/IO, Police Station Khunjhunu, in F.I.R. No. 268/85, is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Pooran Mal and Vishwanath they be released on bail provided each f them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, to his satisfaction, on the fallowing conditions:- (a) that the petitioner shall make themselves available for the interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (b) that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing much facts to the courts or to any police officer: (c) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. Order accordingly. *******