JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a false case has been foisted against the applicant because after arrest of Ratan Lal, there is an apprehension of arrest to Inder Kumar as his name is alleged to have told by Ratan Lal to the police. 3. The allegations are that search of house of Ratan Lal was made by police and some explosives articles were seized. It was Ratan Lal, who named this applicant. A case under section ⅚ of the Explosives Substance Act as well as Section 286 IPC, and Section 9-B of the Explosives Act was registered against the applicant and is under investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this application that there is independent evidence against the applicant. 6. I have gone through the case diary and I am inclined to grant this application. 7. This application is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 52/96 P.S. Dungla, District Chittorgarh, the applicant, namely, Ender Kumar S/o Shri Laxmi Lal, shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/I.O. of the said Police Station with the following conditions : (i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that he 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; (iii) that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Anticipatory bail allowed. *******