JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are facing trial for the offence under Section 379 Indian Penal Code, in the trial Court. He moved an application for grant of bail. The learned Sessions judge, Rajsamand, while granting the bail to the petitioners/imposed the condition that the petitioners should furnish two surety- bonds each in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each of the residents of district Rajsamand to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 2. The only grievance, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioners are the residents of Indore (Madhya Pradesh) and the condition of furnishing two surety bonds each of the residents of Rajsamand district is an onerous one and the accused-petitioners cannot be compelled to furnish the surety bonds of the persons who are residents of Rajsamand district in the State of Rajasthan. 3. In view of the judgment of this Court in Rishi Kumar and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan, 1984 (1) Crimes 780 , the surety of the persons residing within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Rajsamand, is not necessary before the bail is granted to the petitioners. As such, in view of the judgment in Rishi Kumar's case, to which I agree, I think it proper to accept the sureties of the persons residing even out side Rajsamand district provided the learned trial Court is satisfied with the veracity and genuineness of the surety bonds furnished by such sureties. 4. In the result, the order, passed by the learned lower Court, deserves to be modified and the petitioners will be free to furnish two surety bonds each in the amount of Rs. 10,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The condition that the sureties should be the, residents of Rajsamand district, is set aside and the petitioner will be at liberty to furnish the sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court of even the persons residing outside the district of Rajsamand.Petition allowed.. *******