Sharma, J.—This is an application under s. 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Kishan Singh s/o Iswar Singh, Moolia s/o Chhota, and Nathi s/o Jathya, for their enlargement on bail. They are being prosecuted along with some others under sec. 307 read with sec. 147 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Extra Magistrate, Deeg. The challan is against 15 accused. Twelve of them, including the three applicants, made a joint application for bail before the Magistrate. Nine of them were admitted to bail by the order dated the 15th of July, 1952 but the application was rejected so far as the applicants are concerned as being pre-mature. The three applicants then made an application under sec. 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, but the learned Judge dismissed their application. Kishan Singh, Moolia and Nathi have now made this application before this Court under sec. 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that nine of the twelve accused who made the joint application for bail before the Magistrate have been released, and there was nothing to distinguish their cases from those of the applicants. It was further argued that all the three applicants were agriculturists, who had their cultivation within the jurisdiction of the lower court, and there was no danger of their absconding. It was also argued that there was no allegation of the prosecution that the three applicants were likely to tamper with prosecution evidence. It was, therefore, argued that it would be proper for this Court to exercise its unfettered discretion under sec. 498 in releasing the three applicants also on adequate bail. A number of authorities of various High Courts Were cited to show that bail can be granted by the Sessions Court or High Court even in cases where a person is accused of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. I need not refer to all the authorities cited, but shall content myself by referring to an important ruling of the Allahabad High Court in the case of K. N. Joglekar vs. Emperor (1) (A.I.R. 1931 All. 504) and a ruling of this Court in the case of Manohar vs. Jagdish and others (2) (A.I.R. 1951 Rajasthan 36.). It was decided by a Special Bench in the Allahabad case, referred to above, that "sec. 498 is not controlled by the limitations of sec. 497, except when there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused committed the offence, or there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty, in which cases it becomes a duty to release him. Magistrates can proceed under sec. 497 only and their discretion is regulated by the provisions of that section; but sec. 498 confers upon a Sessions Judge or the High Court wide powers to grant bail which are not handicapped by the restrictions in the preceding section. That discretion is unfettered but of course it cannot be exercised arbitrarily, but must be exercised judicially. It is not any one single circumstance which necessarily concludes the decision, but it is the cumulative effect of all the combined circumstances that must weigh with the Court." In the ruling of this Courts referred to above, it was held that "although the powers of bail should be very sparingly exercised in a case punishable with death or transportation for life, bail may be granted even in such a case under appropriate circumstances by the Sessions Court or the High Court."

3. The learned counsel appearing for the State does not say anything against the principle laid down in the above two rulings. He has, however, argued that both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, after considering all the circumstances, have refused bail to the three applicants, and this Court, therefore, should be slow to grant bail in the circumstances of the case.

4. It is true that the Magistrate concerned and the Sessions Judge have rejected the applicants application for bail. I, however, do not unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document