JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since the petitioner had earlier made a motion before this Court, for, his being ordered to be released from judicial custody, and, the afore motion, after detailed arguments, being addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and, by the learned Additional Advocate General, was, ordered to be dismissed, as, withdrawn. Further more, since there is no change, in, circumstance, since then up to the filing of the instant petition, before this Court, hence, on merits, the instant application, does not survive, and, it deserves to be dismissed, on merits. 2. However, this Court had, for, determining the varacity, of, submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on, instructions meted to him, by the latter, qua owing to his being continued to be incarcerated, has sequelled the ill effects of his being disabled, to, maintain his business, and, also qua there being nobody, to take care and look after his aged father, his paralytic mother, and, disabled son, hence had directed the learned Additional Advocate General, to, ensure, the, making, of a status report vis-a-vis thereon. A perusal of the status report, discloses, that, the afore submission addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, meted to him, by the petitioner, is, laden with truth. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has, made a vehement submission, before this Court, that, the afore truthful disability entailed, upon, the family members, of, the petitioner perse leveraging him, to, make a contention before this Court, for, it proceeding to make an order, for, the petitioner being ordered to be released from judicial custody. However, prima-facie, at this stage, this Court is of the view, that, the afore ground, of, critical ailments, hence besetting the family members, of, the incarcerated accused, may not be available, for, his further nursing, it, as a ground, for, the accused being ordered to be released from custody, as the same, is available only, upon, the petitioner, displaying qua critical ailment hence besetting him, and, apt recuperative facilities being not available, in, the jail concerned. 4. 4. Further more, since all the apt relieving/alleviating conditions, as, enunciated, against, grant of bail, vis-a-vis, heinous offence, and, borne in Section 438 of Cr.P.C, are rather available, for, recoursing, only hence by a female accused, and, not by a male accused, (i) thereupon even benefits thereof, cannot be afforded qua him, (ii) nonetheless this Court deems it fit, to, order, for the release of the petitioner from judicial custody, only, for a period of five months, for enabling him to, within the afore period, hence make all requisite arrangements, vis-a-vis, all the afore para-meters. It is also clarified, that, on expiry of the afore period of five months, the petitioner shall surrender before the Police Station concerned. The petitioner is ordered to be released from judicial custody, subject to compliance by him, with the following conditions:- 1. That he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court concerned. 2. That he shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency. 3. That he 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police. 4. That he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. 5. That he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Police Station, concerned. 6. That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody. 7. That upon his re-indulging in crime, thereupon the State is at liberty for motioning this Court, for, cancellation of the bail. 5. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since the petitioner had earlier made a motion before this Court, for, his being ordered to be released from judicial custody, and, the afore motion, after detailed arguments, being addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and, by the learned Additional Advocate General, was, ordered to be dismissed, as, withdrawn. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since the petitioner had earlier made a motion before this Court, for, his being ordered to be released from judicial custody, and, the afore motion, after detailed arguments, being addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and, by the learned Additional Advocate General, was, ordered to be dismissed, as, withdrawn. Further more, since there is no change, in, circumstance, since then up to the filing of the instant petition, before this Court, hence, on merits, the instant application, does not survive, and, it deserves to be dismissed, on merits. 2. However, this Court had, for, determining the varacity, of, submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on, instructions meted to him, by the latter, qua owing to his being continued to be incarcerated, has sequelled the ill effects of his being disabled, to, maintain his business, and, also qua there being nobody, to take care and look after his aged father, his paralytic mother, and, disabled son, hence had directed the learned Additional Advocate General, to, ensure, the, making, of a status report vis-a-vis thereon. A perusal of the status report, discloses, that, the afore submission addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, meted to him, by the petitioner, is, laden with truth. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has, made a vehement submission, before this Court, that, the afore truthful disability entailed, upon, the family members, of, the petitioner perse leveraging him, to, make a contention before this Court, for, it proceeding to make an order, for, the petitioner being ordered to be released from judicial custody. However, prima-facie, at this stage, this Court is of the view, that, the afore ground, of, critical ailments, hence besetting the family members, of, the incarcerated accused, may not be available, for, his further nursing, it, as a ground, for, the accused being ordered to be released from custody, as the same, is available only, upon, the petitioner, displaying qua critical ailment hence besetting him, and, apt recuperative facilities being not available, in, the jail concerned. 4. 4. Further more, since all the apt relieving/alleviating conditions, as, enunciated, against, grant of bail, vis-a-vis, heinous offence, and, borne in Section 438 of Cr.P.C, are rather available, for, recoursing, only hence by a female accused, and, not by a male accused, (i) thereupon even benefits thereof, cannot be afforded qua him, (ii) nonetheless this Court deems it fit, to, order, for the release of the petitioner from judicial custody, only, for a period of five months, for enabling him to, within the afore period, hence make all requisite arrangements, vis-a-vis, all the afore para-meters. It is also clarified, that, on expiry of the afore period of five months, the petitioner shall surrender before the Police Station concerned. The petitioner is ordered to be released from judicial custody, subject to compliance by him, with the following conditions:- 1. That he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court concerned. 2. That he shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency. 3. That he 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police. 4. That he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. 5. That he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Police Station, concerned. 6. That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody. 7. That upon his re-indulging in crime, thereupon the State is at liberty for motioning this Court, for, cancellation of the bail. 5. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.