JASPAL SINGH ( 1 ) THE question before me arises out of an order for bail. Mr Manoj Jain. Metropolitan Magistrate, ordered the petitioner who is being tried before him. to be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for Rs. 15000. 00 with one surety in the like amount. Consequent upon that order, the petitioner executed a bond, and as regards the surety, he wanted the court to accept Ram Sahai Singh ( 2 ) THE Metropolitan Magistrate, it appears, had no difficulty about the bond executed by the petitioner. The problem arose with regard to the bond of the surety, and in order to satisfy himself about the sufficiency or fitness of the surety he called for the report of the Station House Officer who. in compliance with that order, made a report which runs as under:- "1. That the surety Ram Sahai resides at the above place alongwith his family and his Ration Card No. is 085607 and the same is correct. 2. That Ram Sahai Singh has got a Fixed Deposit of Punjab National Bank which is correct. FD No. is QZH206779. 3. That Surety Ram Sahai is not relative of accused Vivek Sharma and is not in any manner member of the family. The surety has got no control over the accused. Enquiries were made about the accused Vivek Sharma and he was not found visiting the house of surety Ram Sahai. 4. Surety is Thakur by caste and the accused is Sharma/pandit by caste and has got no knowledge of permanent residence of the accused and has not told the place of village of accused. 5. Surety is opposed fully and the financial position of the surety is very weak. The mother of accused gave Rs. 15000. 00 on 4-11 -1995 to the surety for Fixed Deposit and according to Ram Sahai a FD of Rs. 15000. 00 is got made by surety and kept by surety. Position is placed herewith. Surety be not accepted. Smt. Vidyawati is co- accused in this case. S. I. P. S. VIKAS PURI DELHI. Dt. 8-11-1995. " ( 3 ) ON receipt of that report, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed the following order : "report seen. Surety is sound but not fit as he apparently has no control. Rejected. "this is why the petitioner is before me. Smt. Vidyawati is co- accused in this case. S. I. P. S. VIKAS PURI DELHI. Dt. 8-11-1995. " ( 3 ) ON receipt of that report, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed the following order : "report seen. Surety is sound but not fit as he apparently has no control. Rejected. "this is why the petitioner is before me. ( 4 ) UNFORTUNATELY, while directing the Station House Officer to report about the fitness or sufficiency of the surety, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate completely ignored section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sub-section (4) of which enjoins: " (4) For the purpose ofdetrmining whether the sureties are fit or sufficient, the court may accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency , or fitness of the sureties, or, if it considers necessary, may either hold an inquiry itself or cause an inquiry to be made by a Magistrate subordinate to the Court, as to such sufficiency or fitness. " ( 5 ) THE language of sub-section (4) of Section 441 is neither indecisive nor imprecise and makes it clear that an inquiry envisaged thereunder is a judicial act. The Magistrate has to be personally satisfied on an inquiry conducted by him in his judicial capacity about the "sufficiency or fitness" of the surety produced. The court can delegate this responsibility to none other than a Magistrate subordinate to it. Unfortunately, this judicial duty was never satisfied and the course adopted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate not only stultified the grant of bail subjecting thereby the petitioner to avoidable psychological and physical deprivations of jail life but also made a mockery, of social justice and individual freedom. ( 6 ) BEING unable to accept the impugned order I direct the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to look into the matter in his judicial capacity without any further loss of time. Let the petitioner no more languish in jail without cause.