JUDGMENT 1. - The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (referred to in short 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 7.8.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur Dist. Jaipur in Misc. (Criminal) Bail Application No. 783/06 arising out of FIR No. 281/2006 PS Bagru Distt. Jaipur for the offences under Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that while allowing application of the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for his release on bail in the aforesaid case on 7.8.2006 the learned Sessions Judge has passed the following direction- " ;fn vfHk;qDr lfpu ukjk;.k iq= Jh Jhukjk;.k ikfVy dk;e v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k ipkl gtkj :i;s dh udn jkf'k dk eqpydk rFkk iPphl iPphl gtkj :i;s dh jkf'k dh nks ekSrfcj@LFkkuh; udn tekursa bl 'krZ ds lkFk fd og bl ekeys ds fopkj.k ds nkSjku izR;sd rkjh[k is'kh dh lquokbZ ij lacaf/kr U;k;ky; esa vFkok tgka Hkh izdj.k vUrfjr fd;k tkos] fopkj.k gsrq mifLFkr gksrk jgsxk] tek djokdj izLrqr dj ns rks mls tekur ij NksM+ fn;k tkos vU;Fkk og U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa jgsxkA " 3. His learned counsel has contended on the strength of the relevant provisions of the Code and the case of Moti Ram & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 1978 SC 1594 ] that the aforesaid direction to deposit cash/local surety is not only unreasonable and unconscionable but is also so onerous as to deprive the petitioner of bail. He has, therefore, urged that this condition should be deleted/modified and the petitioner may be released on bail on his furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned court. Learned PP also could not defend the impugned order. 4. I have considered the submissions and have perused the relevant provisions of the Code as well as the aforesaid authority cited at the bar. 5. It is apparent from a perusal of the aforesaid direction of the learned Sessions Judge that he has directed the petitioner to furnish a personal bond for a cash sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two local sureties in the cash sum of Rs. 25,000/- each. The order appears to be inapt and ambiguous. 5. It is apparent from a perusal of the aforesaid direction of the learned Sessions Judge that he has directed the petitioner to furnish a personal bond for a cash sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two local sureties in the cash sum of Rs. 25,000/- each. The order appears to be inapt and ambiguous. It is not clear from the aforesaid direction as to whether it requires furnishing of local sureties or the deposit of cash amount in lieu of the personal bond and the sureties. 6. Be that as it may, in either case the aforesaid direction is unsustainable in law because Section 445 of the Code enables the accused-petitioner to deposit cash where the sureties may not be available as he might have been arrested in a place or a district where he has no acquaintances and it is not in respect of those cases where the bond has been executed of sureties have been furnished. 7. Section 445 of the Code reads as under-445. Deposit instead of recognizance When any person is required by any court or office to execute a bond with or, without sureties, such court or officer, may, except in the case of a bond for good behaviour, permit him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory notes to such amount as the court or officer may, if in lieu of executing such bond. 8. The aforesaid section only empowers the court to accept the cash surety for such amount it might think fit, if such amount is offered by the accused. The use of the words 'in lieu of means that the deposit of cash securities is in substitution of and not in addition to the furnishing of a personal bond or surety. 9. This apart, their lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court have held in the case of Moti Ram & Ors. v. State of M.R (supra) that it was not within the power of the court to reject the surety because he or his estate was situate in a different district or State. There was no law prescribing the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court district. So, the demand by the court of sureties from the district, was discriminatory and illegal. 10. There was no law prescribing the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court district. So, the demand by the court of sureties from the district, was discriminatory and illegal. 10. Thus, in view of the provisions under Section 445 of the Code and the law enunciated in the aforesaid authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the directions of the learned Sessions Judge passed in the order dated 7.8 2006 are unsustainable in law and deserve to be set aside arid modified. 11. Consequently, this petition is allowed and direction given by the learned Sessions Judge as extracted above, is quashed and set-aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Judicial Magistrate with the stipulation to appear before the concerned court on each and every date of hearing until conclusion of the trial unless otherwise directed.Petition allowed.. *******