This miscellaneous bail application under section 390 read with Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed for release of Taiyab @ Mubin respondent No.3, Islam @ Pandit respondent No.5 and Khurshid @ Khurram respondent No.6 after quashing the order dated 12.6.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby their bail bonds were forfeited and the respondents were ordered to be taken into custody.

2. The material facts giving rise to this bail application are that the above mentioned respondents, along with co-accused persons, had faced trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 55/2005 for the charges under Section 396 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 5.5.2006, had acquitted the accused persons including the present respondents, for all the charges leveled against them. Thereafter, the State of Rajasthan

3. The victim Uma Goyal had then filed an application before this Court, under Section 390 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for committing the respondents, along with other accused persons, to prison. After hearing the parties, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 12.9.2006 committed the co-accused namely Mubeen and Amin to prison but granted bail to Taiyab, Islam and Khurshid, after imposing following conditions :-

"(i) They will not commit any offence during the pendency of appeal.

(ii) On the last day of each month, they will appear before the SHO Police Station MIA, Alwar, who shall refer their presence in the daily Rojnamcha."

4. Subsequently, some first information reports came to be lodged against the accused applicants and thereafter they had been released on bail in those cases. The SHO Police Station MIA, Alwar had then filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Alwar with the request that Taiyab, Islam @ Pandit and Khurshid @ Khurram be ordered to be taken into custody as they had violated the conditions levied, while granting bail to them on 12.9.2006. The learned Magistrate then, after considering the said application, passed an order on 11.2.2008 for issuance of warrant of arrest. Thereafter, the accused applicants preferred a revision petition against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, issuing the warrant of arrest. The learned Judicial Magistrate, issuing the warrant of arrest. The learned revisional Court allowed the petition on 22.4.2008 and quashed the order of arrest against the accused applicants. Consequently, the accused applicants were released from custody on 23.4.2008. Simiarly on 1.5.2008, the learned revisional court quashed the order passed by the Magistrate in a separate revision petition preferred by Khurshid @ Khurram.

5. Meanwhile the learned Magistrate had, on 17.4.2008, sought instructions from the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Jaipur in relation to breach of conditions of bail, imposed on 12.9.2006, committed by the accused applicants. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on the aforesaid letter sent by the learned Magistrate, directed him to proceed in accordance to the order passed on 12.9.2006, on an application filed by the victim under Section 390 Cr.P.C. The order passed by this Court on the letter of Magistrate seeking instructions as well as the one passed by the learned revisional Court in the revision petition filed by accused-applicants against the order of issuing warrant of arrest were received by the learned Magistrate on the same day i.e. 2.5.2008 and as such the accused were not released from custody. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on 12.6.2008, in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court on 1.5.2008. The bail bonds of the accused applicants were ordered to be forfeited and the applicants were ordered to be taken into custody. Since then, the accused-applicants are in custody.

6. The learned counsel for the accused-applic