SANT RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALOK Basu, J. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and also Sri Verma, learned Assistant Government Advocate. They agree that the petition should be decided finally the certified copy of the Sessions Judge, dated 24-3-1988 has already been filed along with this petition.

(2.) THE facts of the present case are that the applicant was involved in case rime No. 86 of 1985 which purports to be under Section 409, I. P. C. relating to Police Station Hyderabad, District Kheri. THE IV Additional Sessions Judge by virtue of impugned order, dated 24-3-1988 directed that the applicant should be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties. It was also directed that the two sureties should be of gazetted officers, THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that this part of the condition whereby it was directed that the sureties should either be of gazetted officers of the State or Gazetted officers of the Central Government is against the law.

(3.) I find enough force in the argument of the learned counsel. No con trary provision or authority has been shown by the State.