Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The accused-petitioner has moved this application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.164/2014 registered at Police Station Narayanpur (Alwar) for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that one single barrel 0.315 bore Katta and a live cartridge 0.315 bore was recovered from his possession on 19.10.2014 at 2.50 p.m and he was not having a valid and effective license for the same. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar vide order dated 3.11.2014 mainly on the ground that as many as nine other criminal cases for various offences have been registered against the petitioner from time to time.

Inviting attention of this Court towards Section 37 of the Arms Act (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence for which the petitioner has been arrested is bailable and, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail as of right in the light of provisions of Section 436 Cr.P.C., but the learned Court below without considering that aspect of the matter dismissed the application filed by the petitioner only on the ground that some other criminal cases were also registered in past against the petitioner. It was further submitted that a special procedure has been provided under subsection (2) of Section 37 of the Act that if any person is arrested under the Act he shall be delivered without delay to the officer in charge of the nearest police station and that officer shall either release that person on his executing a bond with or without sureties to appear before a Magistrate or should that person fail to execute the bond and to furnish, if so required, sufficient surities, produce that person without delay before Magistrate. It was submitted that the special procedure as provided under this provision of the Act makes it analogous to Section 436 Cr.P.C. and, therefore the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as of right. It was also submitted that although under any of the provision of the Act it has not been specifically provided that offences or any of the offence punishable under the Act are/is bailable, but looking to the special procedure provided under sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act it is manifest that the offences under the Act are bailable.

So far as grant of bail to the petitioner on merit is concerned, it was submitted that merely because some other criminal cases were also registered against the petitioner for various offences from time to time cannot be a ground to refuse bail in the present case more particularly in view of the period of custody of the petitioner, which is more than a month.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Kuruva Surya Prakash Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2002 Crl.L.J.2356 (A.P. High Court), State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Narender reported in 2014 SC Manu 10, order dated 2.9.2009 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in S.B.Criminal Misc.Third Bail Application No.6747/2009 (Tejmohan Vs. State of Rajasthan), order dated 8.9.2009 passed by the same learned Single Bench of this Court in S.B.Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.6720/2009 (Pabu Ram @ Babu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan).

On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that according to clause (a) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as "the Code"), a "bailable offence" means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule, or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force; and "non-bailable" offence means any other offence. It was submitted that unless an offence is specifically or impliedly made bailable by any other law for the time being in force the question whether an offence i