JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioners and learned P.P. 2. Shri Bajawa submits that this is a Second Bail application on behalf of the accused petitioners. Earlier, the first Bail Application No. 3636/91 was decided by this Court on 25th October, 1991 and on that day it was given out that the Bail Application under Section 438 Cr P.C. has been rejected by the Sessions Judge. Karauli on the ground that the learned Public Prosecutor made a can did statement before him that the offence against the accused was not non-bailable and consequently the application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Karoli. In the order dated 25th October, 1991, it has been mentioned that it was wrong apprehension of the petitioner that the police shall now convert the case into a non-bailable offence and the court expressed the opinion that once a statement is made by the public Prosecutor after going through the case diary, if any conversion is to be made and the accused is to be arrested, it is expected that the warrant shall be obtained from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate or the concerned court for arresting the accused persons and in case the law in circumvented, the investigating officer shall do it at his own risk. With these observations, the first bail application No. 3626/91 was disposed of. 3. Shri Bajawa has pointed out that after the First Bail Application was disposed on 25th October, 1991 as aforesaid, the warrant was obtained against the petitioners within three days by converting the offence into non-bailable offence i.e. under Section 326 IPC on the basis of X-Ray report dated 12th October, 1991 when the first bail application was decided by this court. 4. The Honb'le Judge, who had decided the first bail application has made an exception in this matter on 2nd December, 1991. 5. It has been argued that in fact it is a case in which both the parties received injuries and it appears that the earlier bail application under Section 438 was not rejected by making a statement that it was not a case of non-bailable offence although the X-ray report dated 12th October, 91 was very much available. 6. 5. It has been argued that in fact it is a case in which both the parties received injuries and it appears that the earlier bail application under Section 438 was not rejected by making a statement that it was not a case of non-bailable offence although the X-ray report dated 12th October, 91 was very much available. 6. Shri Abdul Gaffar has submitted that on the basis of the X-ray report dated 12th October, 91 which is available in the case-diary, a case under Section 326 IPC is made out. 7. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case in totality and I find that no useful purpose will be served by allowing the prosecution to detain the 5 accused petitioners and it is a fit case in which the accused petitioners are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. The SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer Police Station, Hindaun, Dist. Sawaimadhopur in F.I.R. No. 373/91, is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Santosh, Krishna Kumar, Sanjeev and Kushal sons of Mangi Lal and Mangilal S/O. Shri Darshan Singh, they shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) each to his satisfaction, on the following conditions 1. that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. 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 such facts to the court, or any police officer; and 3. that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 9. Since it has been given out that the warrant of arrest has been obtained against the 5 accused petitioners, it is directed that none of the 5 accused petitioners shall be arrested in pursuance of the said warrant.This bail application is allowed as indicated above. *******