( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr. PC for grant of bail.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are accused 1 to 3 respectively in Crime No. 34 of 1998 on the file of Malkapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam registered for the offences under Sections 392 and 342 of 1pc and Section 25 (1-B) (A) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioners are said to be the permanent employees of Indian Navy at Visakhapatnam. The allegations against the petitioners are that on 4-6-1998 at about 7. 20 p. m. the accused entered into Andhra Bank Extension Counter, INS Veerababu, Malkapuram with country made pistols and knife etc. , and threatened the Bank Branch Manager and the Cashier at the point of pistol and committed theft of cash of Rs. 2,54,371. 00 from the Bank and escaped with the said amount on an unnumbered Bajaj Chetak scooter. According to the prosecution, at the time of commission of offence, the petitioners were wearing masks to conceal their identity. It is stated that the petitioners are innocent and that investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed and as such they may be released on bail.

( 3 ) DURING the course of investigation, it came to light that as the petitioners are Officers of the Indian Navy, the Naval authorities have decided to proceed against the petitioners in Court Martial proceedings and in accordance with that on the requisition of the commanding officer, the petitioners have been handed over to the naval authorities under the provisions of the Navy Acton 12-1-1999.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the prosecution, Mr. B. Adinarayana the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing on behalf of the prosecution has raised a preliminary objection that, the Code of Criminal Procedure including Sections 437 and 439 of Cr. PC arc not applicable in view of the fact that the petitioners are to be proceeded with Court Martial proceedings under the Navy Act.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Ramanaimirthy for Sri Vasudeva Rao contends that under Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code. However, according to him, sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Cr. PC contemplates that this shall be subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. It is submitted that this does not apply to the case of the petitioners as far as the application for bail is concerned.

( 6 ) MR. B. Adinarayana, the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government relying on Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code contends that the Criminal Procedure Code docs not affect any special or local law for the time being in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law for the time being in force.

( 7 ) THE contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government is that the Indian Navy Act is a law which provides for the enquiry, investigation and trial of offences in respect of employees and officers of the Indian Navy and as such Sections 437 and 439 of Cr. PC cannot be invoked to seek bail for the accused in this case.

( 8 ) ON this question, apart from the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Ramanauntrthy and the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government Sri B. Adinarayana, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior advocate at the request of the Court assisted as amicus curie and addressed arguments.

( 9 ) THE question for consideration is whether in view of the provisions of the Navy Act and provisions under Sections 4 and 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a petition for bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Cr. PC on behalf of the accused-petitioners can be entertained?

( 10 ) ANSWER to this question depends on the inte