Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is second bail application filed by the accused. The earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court on 1.11.2012 at that stage, with liberty to the accused to apply for bail before the court below after filing of challan. 3. On having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case as revealed from the material on record filed alongwith the challan as well as the nature of allegation against the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it deemed just and proper to now enlarge the petitioner on bail with the condition that he shall not commit any offence during the period of bail otherwise, the order of bail passed shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Court. 4. Consequently, this second bail application is allowed subject to the aforesaid condition. 5. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Pawan Kumar S/o. Sh. Raghuraj in F.I.R. No. 116/2012, registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur City (South), shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 6. Before parting with this order, it is deemed proper to note that while considering the earlier bail application of the petitioner (10238/2012) on 1.11.2012, this Court had passed the following order:- "...I do not find any just reason to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. However, he may apply for bail before the learned court below, after filing of challan." In other words, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was deemed proper by this Court that the learned court below should consider the case of the petitioner afresh after filing of challan. Accordingly, a liberty was given to the accused to apply for bail before the court below on submissions of challan by the police, In such a situation, it was expected from the learned court below that as and when the challan is filed and the bail application is submitted then the same shall be considered on merits, after carefully going through the material filed alongwith the challan. 7. 7. The learned court below has on 8.11.2012, while deciding the bail application of the accused filed after challan, passed the following order: ^^----izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vc ;g f}rh; tekur dk izkFkZuk i= ek= vkjksi i= izLrqr gksus o izkFkhZ ds U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gksus ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ysfdu iwoZ tekur izkFkZuk i= ds fuLrkj.k ds ckn izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dksbZ ifjorZu gqvk gks] ;g bl LVst ij izdV ugha gksus ls xq.kkoxq.k ij fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk] izkFkhZ dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA** The learned court below has not looked into the order passed by this Court on 1.11.2012 and had not applied its judicious mind to consider the bail application on merits, in accordance to the evidence which had come on record after filing of challan, which had been directed by this Court. Merely by saying that there is no changes in circumstances after the decision of the earlier bail application goes to show that it has not complied with the directions of this Court, issued in the earlier order. It is the minimum expectations from a senior Judicial Officer of the rank of the District and Sessions Judge that when clear and specific directions are issued, the same should be fully complied with. The impugned order passed by the learned court below on 8.11.2012 not only reflects that the same has been done in a cursory manner but also that the earlier order passed by this Court has not been considered in a proper perspective. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the District and Session Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.