OBNOXIOUS OBSCENE JEST TELEHPHONIC CALLS BAIL GRANT

                             IN THE COURT OF (NAME OF THE JUDGE),                                                          ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (NAME OF THE CITY).

Latif etc.      Versus The State

Case FIR No.	Offences	Police Station
281/0000	25-D Telegraph Act	ABC

Date

Present        Accused/petitioners  along with their counsel Name of the  Advocate.

                   Learned  DDPP for state.

                   Nemo for the complainant.

1.                It is alleged in the FIR lodged at the instance of complainant  that on 16.03.0000,  the accused persons made a phone call  to complainant abused and threatened to kill him.

2.                I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

3.                The alleged phone call was made on 16.03.0000 and the FIR was lodged on 07.04.0000. There is no explanation for delay of 22 days in lodging the FIR. Even otherwise, offence u/s 25-D Telegraph Act  is punishable with  imprisonment of three years  only and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners.  Vide police diary No.5 dated 20.04.0000, the findings of Investigating Officer is that there is property dispute between the parties regarding which telephonic conversation was made between the parties and only exchange of hot words took place between  the parties. In the light of what has been discussed above,  the petition is granted  and ad- -interim pre arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Magistrate within seven days from today. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned court.  File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.

Announced

25.05.0000

                                                                                Judge