( 1 ) SHORTLY stating the facts as apparent from the record are that on June 23 1973 -Police Sub Inspector made a report to the District Superintendent of Police Rajkot to the effect that the premises known as Rajkot Yuvak Sahakar Mandal situated on Mochhi Bazar Road near Krishna Cinema Rajkot was used as a common gaming house and gambling was going on therein. On due inquiry being made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police he was satisfied about the contents of the report with the result that a warrant was issued under the provisions of sec. 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Police Sub Inspector Rajkot City Division A respondent No. 1 herein. The said premises were then raided by the police party in early hours of June 24 1973 at 4-00 a. m. At the time of the raid it is alleged that 10 persons including the petitioner were found in the premises. They had gathered there for the purpose of gambling. It is further alleged that actual gambling was going on by play of cards and various tokens indicating different points per different design of the tokens were found at the time of the raid. Instruments of gambling were seized and 10 persons found therein were arrested for having committed the offences under secs4 and 5 of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that he along with 10 other persons submitted an application on June 24 1973 at 7-00 a. m. to the first respondent to release them on bail. The copy of the said application is produced at Annexure A. According to the petitioner the offences under secs. 4 and 5 of the Act are bailable and inspite of this the first respondent did not consider the said bail application. He also did not pass any order on the same and did not release the petitioner and other persons on bail even though they were so entitled as of right under the provisions of sec. 496 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The first respondent did not consider the said application for bail given by the petitioner and others because of the order passed by Shri P. H. Jethwa District Superintendent of Police Rajkot respondent No. 2 herein directing all the Police Sub Inspectors that the persons who have been arrested for having committed the offences under secs. 4 and 5 of the Act should not be released on bail by the Police Officers because in the form of warrant under sec. 6 of the Act it has been mentioned that the arrested persons should be produced before the Magistrate and therefore it was not proper for the Police Officers to release them on bail by ignoring these provisions of law. Respondent No. 2 further directed by the said order that persons who have been arrested under such warrant should be produced before the Magistrate and the police officer should not take bail and inspite of this if any police officer violated provisions of law such officer would be penalised for encouraging such activities and strict action would be taken against him. This is the impugned order which is produced at Ex. B to the petition. The petitioner alleges that the second respondent has got no power or authority to issue the impugned order bearing No. RV 618/jugar/1973 dated May 29 1973 Ex. B. According to the petitioner the offences under secs. 4 and 5 of the Act are cognizable and bailable and the impugned order passed by the second respondent is contrary to the statutory provisions and hence the same is illegal ultra vires and apparently bad. The petitioner also challenges sec. 6 of the Act as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that the District Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police can arrest a person who is suspected of having committed the offences under secs. 4 and 5 of the Act without any warrant and release them on bail while the officers not below the rank of Police Sub Inspector to whom special warrant under sec. 6 of the Act can be issued are not entitled to release the persons suspected of having committed such