Judgment I. S. ISRANI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor for the state. The petitioner is charged to have committed offence under Sections 27, 29, 31, 39, 50 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. ( 2 ) IT is given out by learned Counsel Shri Balwada that F. I. R. was lodged on 22/12/1983, and the petitioner was transfered from Sariska to Sawaimadhopur on 17/1/1987 and was released to join only on 10/4/1989. It is submitted that during all this period, even though F. I. R. was filed on 22/12/1988, no action was taken against the petitioner. It is also submitted that no recovery has been made so far, regarding his involvement in selling of skins and bones etc. Shri S. C. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor states that from the statement, of eye-witnesses Han Singh, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Babulal, it is clear that the petitioner is in collusion with gang which does business of illegal sale of skins and bones. This is also mentioned by Surjan Singh another witness. This court had directed on 6/6/1989 that the petitioner will appear before the concerned authorities for interrogation and on summons he had appeared and given in writing that he is prepared to come for interrogation at any time. However, till today, he has not been interrogated as there is nothing in the case diary. ( 3 ) THE statements of Han Singh, Ashok Sharma and Babulal which were recorded after the direction of this Court. I do not find any justification for not taking any action against the petitioner from 22/12/1988 till 30/5/1989 when this application was filed for grant of bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 4 ) MR. Sharma also gives out that bail application under Section 438 filed by co-accused nathu singh was rejected by this Court vide its order dated 20th June, 1989, in bail application No. 603/1989. ( 5 ) WITHOUT giving any opinion on the merits of the case in the facts and. circumstances I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner Badrilal. Sharma also gives out that bail application under Section 438 filed by co-accused nathu singh was rejected by this Court vide its order dated 20th June, 1989, in bail application No. 603/1989. ( 5 ) WITHOUT giving any opinion on the merits of the case in the facts and. circumstances I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner Badrilal. ( 6 ) THE S. H. O. /arresting Officer Investigating Officer, P. S. Akbarpur, district Alwar, is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in F. I. R. No. 76/5, he be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 each, to his satisfaction on the following conditions. (1) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; (2) That the petitioner 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 such facts to the court or to any police officer. (3) That the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.