JUDGMENT 1. - The contentions of the present petitioners are that they have been implicated falsely. In F.I.R. it has been alleged that news regarding a controversial CD and involvement of Congress politician was published before 4.6.2012 which is factually incorrect. The first news which was published in Marulahar news-paper on 4.6.2012 and that news has been published on the basis of the report of India Today. The present petitioners and the complainant are having political rivalry. The petitioners exposed the corrupt practice of the complainant and Hon'ble the High Court has directed the State authorities to look into the matter. Hence the complainant is in inimical relation with the present petitioners and further more the news regarding the controversial CD has also been published in many other news-papers. The present petitioners are behind the bar since long. The offence is triable by a Magistrate and hence they should be released on bail. 2. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant is that the present petitioners have rnala fidely published false news in regard to the complainant. The present petitioners are media persons and they used to blackmail the complainant. Earlier they has also published such false news. They are in habit of publishing false news. Other cases are also pending against the present petitioner and the Asst. Editor of India Today has stated that they are not having any CD in relation to the complainant. Hence, looking to the conduct of the present petitioners, they should not be released on bail. 3. The case diary goes to show that India Today has also published news regarding CD in relation to Congress Leaders at Barmer. The statement of Rohit Parihar that they are not having any CD, seems to be false, as the news published in India Today clearly refers the CD in connection with the Congress Leaders of Barmer and the contention of the petitioner is that on the basis of report of India Today, the news has been published in Marulahar. The petitioner Mahaveer Jain is said to be the in-charge of this news-paper. Nothing has been placed on record that the present petitioners have blackmailed the complainant earlier also. 4. The petitioner Mahaveer Jain is said to be the in-charge of this news-paper. Nothing has been placed on record that the present petitioners have blackmailed the complainant earlier also. 4. List of other pending case has also been placed on record which goes to show that against Mahaveer Jain, seven other cases were registered, out of which in three cases, he has been acquitted and in three cases after investigation, the F.I.Rs. have been found to be false. One case is pending for which the contention of the present petitioner is that investigation of this F.I.R. is stayed by the High Court. Against petitioner Jagdish Khatri, six other cases are registered, out of which in four cases he has been acquitted and fifth case has been found to be false after investigation. Against petitioner Harish Chandak only two cases have been registered, one was found to be false after investigation and in one case the proceedings are stayed by the High Court. Hence there seems no criminal record of the present petitioners. The contention of the present petitioners is that due to political rivalry time and again cases have been registered against them. 5. Looking at the fact that charges against the present petitioners are for the offence under Sections 384, 385 and 500, I.P.C., no other case is pending against them, it is a fit case to release the present petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, these bail applications are allowed and it is directed that the petitioners Harish Chandak S/o Chaturbhuj Chandak, Jagdish Khatri S/o Lekhraj Khatri and Mahaveer Jain S/o Late Hiralal Jain in connection with F.I.R. No. 255/2012 of Police Station, Kotwali, District Barmer, shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith wo sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their app ranee before that Court on the next date of hearing and as and when called u n to do so.Bail application allowed. *******