( 1 ) THE grievance raised in this petition is of a nature which seldom comes up to this Court for adjudication.

( 2 ) EARLIER on 1-7-89, the petitioner had addressed a letter-petition to this Court which was taken cognizance of under Section 482 Cr. P. C. she complained that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior was not accepting the bail bonds offered on behalf of her son, who was an under-trial prisoner. At the hearing the petitioner absented herself and having perused the record, this Court observed that it was for the learned Magistrate to satisfy himself about the solvency or the bona fides of the surety; no action could be taken on a vague petition. It was dismissed summarily on 18-7-1989.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner filed this petition in the nature of a writ petition seeking a direction to the C. J. M. Gwalior, to accept the bail bonds offered by the petitioner and release her son. A Division Bench of this court entertained the petition, but on being apprised of the rejection of the earlier petition of the petitioner, formed an opinion that the petitioner could agitate the matter before the same Judge who has disposed of the earlier petition. The matter having been placed before this Bench, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Division Bench by implication intended the petition to be heard and disposed of under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The contention was accepted. The State had already filed a reply. Comments of C. J. M. Gwalior were called for.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the State the only relevant fact stated is that the petitioner's son is an under-trial prisoner on charges under Section 302 I. P. C. in Crimes Nos. 92/74, 93/74 and 94/74 and under Section 307 I. P. C. in Crime No. 95/74 of P. S. Madhoganj, Lashkar. He was absconding. Challans were filed in his absentia. Later on he was arrested and produced before the Court. Comments of the C. J. M. , Gwalior show that the surety bonds furnished by the petitioner were refused to be accepted not because of the surety being the mother of the accused, as is being complained of by the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE learned C. J. M. , Gwalior further pointed out that in all the 4 cases the accused has been allowed to go on bail in an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each, the surety bonds to be furnished to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Gwalior. In all the four cases, the petitioner, mother of the accused, proposed to stand as surety. In her affidavit she has declared that she owned a house apart from household articles and implements of agriculture. Copies of a certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, showing that she owned the house, were filed in all the 4 cases. On perusal of the affidavit and the documents the C. J. M. found that the value of the house was not disclosed anywhere. The households articles and the agricultural implements were exempted from attachment under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Section 147 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. As such, he found it difficult to accept the sufficiency of the surety in all the 4 cases. The offences charged against the accused were of serious nature and the petitioner was not able to satisfy the C. J. M. about herself and about her solvency. As he was not satisfied about the fitness or sufficiency of the surety, he refused to accept the surety bonds.

( 6 ) THE sole ground stated in the petition and also forcefully pressed at the hearing by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned C. J. M. Gwalior was not justified in refusing to accept the surety bonds merely because the surety happens to be the mother of the accused. On behalf of the State, the petition has been opposed by submitting that this Court would not be justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate.

( 7 ) THE object underlying several provisions as to bails is to secure the presence of an accused at the trial. That has to be kept in mind not only while