Sen, J.—The question involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court of Karnataka was justified in directing the Sessions Judge, Bidar to proceed with the trial of Sessions Case No. 23 of 1984 insofar as it relates to the respondent Narsa Reddy and one Vaijinath, accused No. 2, arraigned, for having committed alleged offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 both read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, I860 and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. While issuing notice, we were not satisfied about the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which had the effect of splitting up of the trial although the prosecution case against the accused arose out of the same incident and the evidence to be led by the prosecution against them was more or less common. It also seemed to us that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge were to be implemented, the learned Sessions Judge would be constrained to proceed against the respondent and accused No. 2 Vaijinath and thereby the very object of directing de now trial would be frustrated. At the hearing, no one appeared for the respondent and therefore we did not have the benefit of hearing his counsel.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows. On February 14, 1984, at about 7 p. m., the respondent Narsa Reddy pushed his wife the deceased Jagdamba into a well situate in his garden to cause her death and he then with the help of accused No. 2, Vaijinath pulled her out of the well and brought her to the house of the respondent whereof he assaulted her with a stick and thereafter strangulated her to death. After the committal, the Sessions case was posted for evidence and evidence of four witnesses was recorded. The testimony of PW 3 Rangareddy and PW 4 Rangareddy revealed the involvement of Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John, who were cited as prosecution witnesses, in the disposal of the dead body of the deceased, that they had also committed the offence under section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith the other two accused. An application was accordingly filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under section 319 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for impleading Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John as accused Nos. 3 and 4 in the Sessions case. On the said application, the learned sessions Judge by his order dated August 22, 1985 ordered that Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John be impleaded as accused Nos. 3 and 4 for the offence under section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He also ordered that a de novo trial would be held against the accused persons after refraining charges. Before the trial could proceed further, the newly impleaded accused Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application before learned Sessions Judge contending that they could not be impleaded as accused and that since they were public servants, sanction under section 197 of the Code was required for their prosecution. The application of accused Nos. 3 and 4 was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on October 28, 1985. Thereupon, Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John, impleaded as accused Nos. 3 and 4, preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985 before the High Court. The High Court has admitted the revision and granted stay of proceedings in the Sessions case. In the meanwhile, the respondent Narsa Reddy who had been arrayed as accused No. 1 made an application for bail under section 439 (1) before the learned Sessions Judge contending that in view of the stay order granted by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985, the trial of the Sessions case was unduly protracted and hence he should be released on bail, apart from the ground that no prima facie case has been made out against him.

4. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated September 25, 1985 rejected the application on the ground that earl