JUDGMENT 1. -Notice was given to RP Heard the parties. 2. While granting bail to the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.PC. vide his order dated 18.10.97 and 22.10.97 the learned Special Judge directed that the petitioners can be released on bail on their furnishing two local sureties in the amount of 10,000/- each with personal bonds in the amount of Rs.20.000/- each. The petitioners appear to have objected against the requirements of producing local sureties but by subsequent order dated 4.11.97 the learned Spl. Judge turned-down their request on the ground that he had become...... officio in the matter and that he can not review his earlier orders. It appears that while applying for modification of the earlier order as had been passed by the learned Special Judge, the petitioner had invited his attention to the law laid-down by the Supreme Court in the case of Moti Ram and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1978 Cr.L.J. 1703) and in the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Ahay Singh @ Rajesh @ Pritam & Anr. v. State of Raj. (1995 Cr.L. R. (Raj.) 93) Wherein it had been held that the requirements of producing local sureties for releasing on bail was repugnant to the spirit of Constitution and, therefore, bad in law. 3. The learned PP. though placed difficulty arising in those case where sureties residing beyond jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate/Court are produced and proceedings under Section 446 Cr.PC. have to be initiated for absence of the accused, yet he was fair enough to submit that declaration of the Supreme Court on the point made law of the land under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and. therefore, has to be followed by the subordinate courts. 4. In the said cited their Lordships of the Supreme Court have categorically held as under: "To add in suit to injury, the Magistrate has demands sureties from his own district. (We assume the allegation in the petition). What is a Malaya lees Kannadiga, Tamil or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation of theft or criminal trespass in Bastar Port Blair, Pahalgam or Chandni Chowk. He cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know any one there and might have come in a batch or to seek a job or in a morcha. He cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know any one there and might have come in a batch or to seek a job or in a morcha. Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surest achieved by such provincial allergies. What law prescribes sureties from outside or non-regional language applications. What law prescribes the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court district. This tendency takes many forms, sometimes, geographic, sometimes linguistic some time legalistic. Art. 14 protects all India qua Indians, within the territory of India. Art. 350 sanctions representation to any authority, including a court, for redress of grievances in any language used in the Union of India. Equality before the law implies that even a vakalat or affirmation made in any State language according to the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India save where a valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an adivasi will be unfree in Free India, and likewise many other minorities. This divagation has become necessary to still the judicial beginnings, and to inhibit the process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj is made of united stuff." 5. The observation made by their Lordships were followed by this Court in the case of Ahay Singh @ Rajesh @ Pritam & Anr. v. State (1995 (Raj.) 93). It is, therefore, clear that it is well settled that a court, directing the release of accused on bail during pendency of the trial can not insist upon furnishing sureties residing within his territorial jurisdiction. Such direction would be invalid in law and can not be given effect to. Therefore the word " LFkkuh; " occurring in the order passed by the learned Spl. Judge on 18.10.97 in Cr.Misc. Bail Application No. 28/97 (Rajendra Singh & Anr. v. State) and order passed in Cr. Bail Application No. 29/97 (Rajendra Singh v. State) on 22.11.97 shall stand deleted. The petitioner would be entitled to produce such sureties whose solvency is verified to the satisfaction of the court releasing them on bail. 6. The learned Spl. Judge appears to have fallen in error when he considered the prayer of the petitioner for deletion of the word " LFkkuh; " from his order dated 10.10.97 as seeking review of the same order by him. 6. The learned Spl. Judge appears to have fallen in error when he considered the prayer of the petitioner for deletion of the word " LFkkuh; " from his order dated 10.10.97 as seeking review of the same order by him. It simply involved the correction of error apparent on the face of record in view of the declaration made by the Apex Court and this Court which were binding on the learned Sessions Judge. Correction of mistake on the basis of law of land would not involve review of Court's order. The learned Special Judge should have considered that what the petitioners had asked for was to bring his order dated 18.10.97 inconformity to the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Ahay Singh @ Rajesh @ Pritam & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 93) and in the case of Moti Ram & ors. v. State of M.P. (1978 Cr.L.J. 1703) . He could have certainly made the desired modification in his order thus avoiding unnecessary litigation before this Court. 7. In the result the petitions are allowed for the word " LFkkuh; " occurring in the order of learned Spl. Judge (Forged Currency Notes Cases). Jaipur dated 18.10.97 passed in Bail Application No. 28/97 and in the order dated 22.10.97 passed in Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.29/97) is deleted.Petition allowed. *******