Judgment Harbans Lal, J.-Heard learned Counsel for petitioners Jamna Lal and Jagmohan, learned PP for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me including the order dated 28/10/2005 passed by this Court on the bail application of co-accused Bhagwan Singh admitting him to bail. 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the offence under Section 216-A, IPC is bailable. Still the bail has been declined to him by the trial Court in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Area Act, 1986 (in short, the "Act of 1986") and this case is squarely covered by the Judgment s of this Court itself reported in the case of Shriya vs. State, 1989 RCC 189, Bhatta vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (1) RCC 277, Ramdayal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (2) RCC 908 and Kedar and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B.Ccriminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5889/2005 decided on 210.2005 wherein it is observed by this Court that where the alleged offence under the Indian Penal Code itself is bailable, the restriction on the grant of bail provided under Section 5 of the Act of 1986 would not be applicable. 3. Considering the law laid down in this behalf and the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail in this case. 4. In the result, this bail application under Sections 438, CrPC, is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Jamna Lal S/o Bhonru and Jagmohan S/o Bhonru in FIR No. 192/2005 PS Mandrayal, District Karauli for offence under Section 216-A, IPC, they shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/ Investigating Officer, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/. together with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (1) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (2) that the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer; and (3) that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.