JUDGMENT
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.
1. The only ground urged in support of this application and which appears to my mind is that in the FIR which was lodged by none else but Urmila herself, who is major and said to have been abducted, the caste of Maharaj Singh has been given as Tomar Thakur R/o Chamanpur. The accused petitioner is not Thakur by caste but Brahman by caste and is resident of Faraspura. Merely because the accused may be required for identification the bail cannot be refused, if he is otherwise entitled to bail in view of the third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 438 Cr.PC. I find no substance in the submission of Mr. M.I. Khan that identity is yet to be established, more so, the name of the accused is given in FIR and his caste and place of residence are also given.
2. Consequently, I allow this application and direct that in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 26/85, P.S. Kotwali, Dholpur the petitioner Maharaj Singh shall be released on bail by the SHO concerned on his furnishing a bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5000/- each to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating Officer undertaking that the petitioner will make himself available during the investigation as and when he is required and he will not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, dissuading him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer. In case the accused petitioner is required for identification, he will not raise the grudge, that he was shown to the witnesses because he is being granted anticipatory bail.