( 1 ) THIS is an application by one Sheikh Mahmood Muzaffar praying that he be enlarged on bail pending his trial before the court of Session at Meerut on charges under sections 302/120-B/109 of Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case the applicant entered into a conspiracy with certain other persons, who have also Been committed to stand their trial, to murder one Lala jai Prakash and in pursuance of that conspiracy the said Lala Jai Prakash was shot at on 30th october 1961 at 6 or 6. 30 p. m. in the village Rasulpur Dhaulari, police station Jani. A first information report of the incident was lodged by one Hari Krishen Das in which it was stated that one Mohammad Umar alias Bucha and two others shot at Lala Jai Prakash and they would be identified by the witnesses in the light of the lantern burning there. It appears that the said report was lodged at about 8. 15 P. M. on the same date when Lala Jai Prakash was alive. It further appears that Lala Jai Prakash was removed to the hospital at Meerut where his dying declaration was recorded by a Tahsiidar Magistrate at about 10. 30 P. M. Neither in the first information report nor in the dying declaration any allegation is made against the present applicant, Sheikh Mahamood Muzaffar. According to the prosecution, the fact that it was the applicant at whose instance the murder had taken place was discovered by them during the course of investigation later on. The applicant was arrested on 29. 11. 1951. By an order dated 12. 1. 1962 a Magistrate of First Class of Meerut has committed the applicant on charges under the abovesaid sections to stand his trial before the court of Session. In the said order the learned Magistrate has referred to certain evidence from which he has inferred that a prima facie case of conspiracy to murder has been made out against the applicant. He has referred to the following evidence: (After narrating the evidence the judgment proceeds:)

( 2 ) BEFORE the learned Sessions Judge two applications were filed on behalf of the applicant for his release on bail. The first application was filed during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings before the learned Magistrate and the second application was filed after the applicant had been committed for his trial before the Sessions Court. Both these applications were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the applicant was charged with a serious offence and the evidence against him was prima facie of a nature on the basis of which it could reasonably be believed that he was guilty of an offence punishable with life imprisonment or death.

( 3 ) IN this application before me a detailed affidavit has been filed which has been sworn by sheikh Masood Muzaffar, son of the applicant, giving all the relevant facts and the circumstances. On behalf of the prosecution two counter affidavits have been filed controverting some of the allegations made in the affidavit of Sheikh Masood Muzaffar and placing other circumstances of the case. I heard arguments at some length in this case.

( 4 ) SRI H. C. Tripathi, the learned Additional Government Advocate, in his careful arguments has contended that in the case of a non-bailable offence of a serious nature an accused is not ordinarily entitled to be released on bail unless he makes out certain exceptional circumstances peculiar to himself or which may induce a reasonable belief in the mind of the court that he has not committed any offence punishable with life imprisonment or death. It has further contended that the powers of the High Court and the Sessions Judge in the matter of enlarging accused on bail under Section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code are concurrent and once the learned sessions Judge has refused to exercise a discretion in favour of the accused and rejected his prayer for bail, the High Court should not release the accused on bail unless the accused is able to show that the order of the learned sessions Judge was pe