JUDGMENT The applicant is in custody in Crime No. 710/93, which was originally registered by the Police only under sections 458 and 382 of IPC. The report of the incident was lodged by Nemichand, who is the husband of Smt. Sudha on the information supplied by her, as Nemichand was not at home at the time of incident. Smt. Sudha had accompanied her husband to Police· Station when report was lodged by him. In the FIR, which was taken down in the presence of Smt. Sudha, the applicant was not named, though he was living in the neighborhood and is also stated to be in a relation of the complainant. If his name, on being disclosed was not recorded be police, as is contended now by the complainant, no report in this regard is stated to have been made to any superior police official. Even later, when the statement was recorded by the Police under section 161, Cr.P.C., complainant Nemichand did not state that the applicant was amongst the miscreants. The applicant's name for the first time appeared in the statement of Mst Sudha, when she was examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. by the Police. It is contended by the complainant's counsel that since the very beginning the Police was trying to help the accused-applicant, and the learned Sessions Judge, Morena, while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, had to comment that the Police had registered the case only under sections 458 and 382, IPC, though it clearly appeared to be one under sections 392 and 397 of IPC. The offence was, thereafter, registered under section 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Be that as it may, but the surrounding circumstances as also the subsequent circumstances of the case are then to be considered. The complainant had also objected the grant of bail to the applicant in the Court below. A copy of the objections is filed on record by the applicant's counsel: It is not disputed by the complainant's counsel. In the objection-application as well, it was not stated by the complainant that he had named the applicant in the FIR, on the version given to him by his wife but was not recorded by Police, and nor such averment has been supported in the affidavits filed by the complainant and his wife Smt. Sudha in this Court. In the objection-application as well, it was not stated by the complainant that he had named the applicant in the FIR, on the version given to him by his wife but was not recorded by Police, and nor such averment has been supported in the affidavits filed by the complainant and his wife Smt. Sudha in this Court. Without meaning to comment on the merits of the case and making it very clear that the observations made above shall not in any manner adversely affect the prosecution case at the trial, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the application deserves to be allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousand) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) each to the satisfaction of CJM, Morena. It is further directed that the applicant shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence, and if it is so found by the Court below on any complaint in that regard, it would be open to the Court below to cancel the bail allowed to the applicant, without reference to this Court.