JUDGMENT : V.K. Sharma, J. Notice. Mr. Ravinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, learned Deputy Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. Heard. Case FIR No.153/12, dated 24.6.2012, under Sections 342, 353, 333, 332, 307, 147, 148, 149 and 427 Indian Penal Code was registered against some persons including the petitioners herein and one Neeraj Kumar. The said Neeraj Kumar, was released on bail by an order dated 9.8.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P. While granting bail to him besides imposing other conditions, he was directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Nalagarh, District Solan, or any other Judicial Magistrate posted in District Solan. However, in the case of the petitioners while granting bail, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P., while laying down other conditions, directed that the petitioners shall furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of either of the aforesaid Magistrates. (emphasis supplied) 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the condition, whereby they are required to furnish local sureties. It is stated that the petitioners belong to the State of Bihar and are working in a factory in District Solan (Himachal Pradesh). In such circumstances, they being poor labourers, are not in a position to arrange for local sureties. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General with learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State and gone through the available records. 5. On the face of it, the impugned direction requiring furnishing of local sureties is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a like case reported as, Moti Ram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1594, wherein it has been held as under, vide para 32:- "32. To add insult to injury, the Magistrate has demanded sureties from his own district (We assume the allegation in the petition). What is a Malayalees, Kannadiga, Tamil or Telgu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or theft or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair, Pahalgam or Chandni Chowk? To add insult to injury, the Magistrate has demanded sureties from his own district (We assume the allegation in the petition). What is a Malayalees, Kannadiga, Tamil or Telgu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or theft or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair, Pahalgam or Chandni Chowk? He cannot have sureties owing 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, sometimes legalistic. Article 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Article 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." 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the condition imposing furnishing of local sureties by the petitioners, vide the impugned order dated 6.3.2013, is quashed and instead, it is ordered that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing two solvent sureties to the extent of the bond amount without any insistence that such sureties ought to be local sureties. 7. The petition, as also pending Cr.MP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.