JUDGMENT 1. - This order disposes of three bail applications viz., S.B, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 571/88, 572/88 and 573/88 in FIR Nos. 25/88, 27/88 and 16/88 respectively registered at Police Station, Chirawa for offences under Sections 326, 338 and 420 IPC. 2. The allegations in all the three cases are almost similar. The prosecution case is that the accused petitioner has been running an eye hospital in Jhunjhunu district and that though he is not a qualified Doctor and is a quad but he gave an impression to the people of the area that he is a qualified eye surgeon and he has been doing the operations also or giving different type of treatments as a result of which some persons in the area lost their eye sight. The different aggrieved persons filed first information reports against the petitioner and in three of the aforesaid cases registered, his arrest has been shown. In FIR No 16/88, the offence relates to year 1982 and is thus, six year old In FIR No. 25/88 the offence committed before eight years and in FIR No. 27/88 also the offence is of more than one year prior. In all the cases the cases have been registered for offences under Sections 326, 338 and 420 IPC. Accused in these circumstances have been committed to judicial custody and is not wanted by the police. 3. It is also pertinent to mention here that when it was learnt in the are that petitioner is not a qualified Doctor, the people also moved the State Government who in turn has appointed Sub-Divisional Officer to hold an enquiry and latter has issued notification inviting complaints. 4. The petitioner who has been arrested a month earlier moved applications for bail under Section 4 9 Cr. P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu which has been rejected on March 25, 1988 by the learned Sessions Judge. It is thereafter that these bail applications have been filed. 5. Mr. Tibrewal. learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the casts have been registered against the accused at the behest of rivals of the petitioner and all allegations after seven years have been levelled against him. It is thereafter that these bail applications have been filed. 5. Mr. Tibrewal. learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the casts have been registered against the accused at the behest of rivals of the petitioner and all allegations after seven years have been levelled against him. His submission is that the petitioner is only providing optical lense/spects to the persons whose eye sights are weak after clinical examination and has not performed operations Since the local influential persons have given assurance to the people that they will get compensation to the affected persons these cases have been registered. His further submission is that the cases are triable only by Magistrate and since the petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation and that he is in jail for more a month, he deserves to be released on bail also for the purposes that he can effectively defend himself even in the administrative enquiry. 6. Mr. Choudhary, appearing for the complainant, vehemently oppose the bail applications and submitted that accused has committed a social crime for which he should not be released on bail. His further submission is that even the small boy has lost his eye sight due to the treatment by this quack and the same cannot be compensated. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to accept these applications particularly because no F.I.R. has been lodged against him soon after the crime and nearest case in which he has been detained is registered at least a year after its commission and also that the offences alleged are exclusively triable by the Magistrate. 8. It is, therefore, directed that accused petitioner Mahavir Prasad Verma be released on bail in each of the cases i- e. in F.I.R No. 16/88, 25/88 and 27/18 registered at Police Station Chirawa provided in each of the cases he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,100/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,100/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bond shall contain the following conditions which, if violated, then it will be open for the State to move for cancellation of the bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu who shall be deciding the same on merits without reference to this Court:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influence or terrorise any of the victims; (ii) that he shall made himself available to the police as and when he is summoned for investigation; (iii) that in view of the fact that Sub-Divisional Officer of the area is holding an enquiry on the administrative side into the entire affair, the accused till then shall not normally leave the district except for important work and shall further report to the concerned police station in first week of every month. *******