IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 666 of 2008 Dharampal Singh, S/o Sri Nahar Singh, R/o 421 New Kashipur, P.S. Transport Nagar, District Merut (U.P.). …….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….. Respondents Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for respondent No. 1. None for respondent no. 02. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for respondent No. 1. None for respondent no. 02. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of at the motion hearing stage. 4. This Court vide its order dated 15.10.2008 released the accused applicant/petitioner on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. Subsequent thereto, the Magistrate concerned while fixing the amount of the bond has asked the accused applicant/petitioner to furnish two local sureties of rupees ten lacs each. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate is very harsh and the Magistrate has erred in demanding the local sureties. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that even if the sureties of Muzaffarnagar were furnished, the Magistrate should have accepted it or it should have been verified from Muzaffarnagar. 6. After due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties; I am of the view that the petitioner may file the sureties outside the State and the Magistrate concerned may get it verified from the Tehsildar or the S.O. concerned, if he is not satisfied with the documents furnished by the petitioner. 7. With the above finding, the petition is disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 22.10.2008 V.K.