The Court of Session presided over by the Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail on behalf of the accused persons in spite of the fact that their application for bail has already been refused by the Additional Sessions Judge or the Assistant Sessions Judge to whom the case is made over for disposal.

R. Bhattacharya, J.:- The present revisional application has been filed by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal on behalf of the State against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Coochbehar on 18-2-1977 granting bail to the accused-opposite parties, Mansur Ali and Bajra Mia who were awaiting trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Coochbehar under Ss. 366 and 376 read with S. 34 of the I. P. C. along with another accused Nurul Mia.

2. The relevant facts connected with the application before us are simple. The accused-opposite parties along with one Nurul Mia were committed to the Court of Session for trial by the committing Magistrate under Ss. 341, 448 and 376 of the I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case for trial to the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge. Nurul Mia was granted bail but the learned Assistant Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for bail made on behalf of the accused-opposite parties on 22-1-1977. Thereafter the said accused-opposite parties Mansur Ali and Bajra Mia filed before the learned Sessions Judge an application under S. 439 of the Cr. P. C., 1973 for bail and on hearing the parties the learned Judge granted bail on 18-2-1977. Against that order, the present revisional application has been filed.

3. Two contentions have been urged from the side of the petitioner-State by Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned Advocate. It has been first contended that the Assistant Sessions Judge to whom the case was transferred for trial being a Court of Session, the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order refusing bail. Secondly, it has been urged that in the absence of any specific provision in the Cr. P. C., 1973 giving jurisdiction to the learned Sessions Judge for considering a prayer for bail after it has been rejected by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge who was in seisin of a sessions trial, the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction. The application has been opposed by Mr. Tapandeb Nandy appearing on behalf of the accused opposite parties.

4. For consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, first of all let us consider S. 7 of the Cr. P. C., 1973. It says that every State shall be a Sessions Division or shall consist of Sessions Divisions and every Sessions Division shall, for the purpose of the Code, be a District or consist of Districts. There is no dispute that the District of Coochbehar is a Sessions Division. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 9 of the Code says that the State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every Sessions Division. Sub-sec. (2) mandates that every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge to be appointed by the High Court. There is no dispute also that the District Judge of Coochbehar is the Sessions Judge of the Court of Session in the Sessions Division of Coochbehar. According to sub-sec. (3) of S. 9 the High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges or Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. We have seen that according to sub-sec. (1) there will be one Court of Session for every Sessions Division and, naturally, there would be one Sessions Judge of the said Court of Session. In addition, we find that Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges may be appointed by the High Court for exercising jurisdiction in the Court of Session. Sub-sec. (5) of S. 9 states that where the office of the Sessions Judge is vacant, the High Court may make arrangements for the disposal of any urgent application which is or may be made or pending before the Court of Session by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by a Chief Judicial Magistrate in the Sessions Division and every such Judge or Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such application.

5. From the reading of the provisions in S. 9 of the Cr. P. C., it is clear that there