JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.

1. These are applications for bail on behalf of accused persons involved in the Meerut conspiracy trial. In the words of the Magistrate : " the charge brought against the accused is one under Part 2 of Section 121-A, I. P. C, namely that they conspired to deprive the King of his sovereignty of British India.

2. The maximum punishment that can be imposed under this section, when the offence as well as its gravity are established, 13 one of transportation for life. In practice the severity of the sentence would vary with the degree of the seriousness of the acts done by each accused who is convicted.

3. The complaint was filed by a police officer against 33 accused persons on 15th March 1929 and all the accused except one were arrested within a week of that date. The inquiry begin in June 1929 and 32 accused persons were committed to the Court of Session in January 1930. One accused person was discharged. The Sessions trial started in that very month and has not yet been completed. The prosecution evidence has however been concluded and the statements of the accused are being recorded. It is expected that the termination of the trial will take several months more.

4. An enormous volume of evidence has been produced by the prosecution, and consists of over 300 witnesses and over 3,000 exhibits. It is not practicable even briefly to consider the bulk of the evidence. Facts which are important for purposes of this miscellaneous proceeding have been put before us in the form of affidavits on behalf of the prosecution. The grounds for release on bail are set forth in the written applications of the accused. To give us a rough idea of the prosecution case and the general nature of the evidence against the accused, the counsel for both parties have also drawn our attention to some passages in the commitment order, and we have also read it.

5. On 23rd April 1931 Mukerji and Boys, JJ., granted bail to two accused, Hutchinson and Nimbkar. Later on the Additional Sessions Judge released four more persons on bail, but refused the applications of the others who had applied for bail.

6. We have before us written applications of 21 accused persons. The cases of the remaining four accused also were for the sake of convenience ordered to be put up before us for consideration. Ordinarily an accused person is expected to move the Sessions Court in the first instance. But in this case it was considered desirable that the cases of all the accused who are in custody should be considered together and not in instalments. Three of these have since intimated that they do not wish to apply for bail. A counsel has been engaged on their behalf as amicus curiae. The fourth had been released on bail on account of his ill-health.

7. As some question has been raised regarding certain legal principles applicable to bail applications it may be convenient to examine the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the very outset.

8. In all bailable cases Section 496, Criminal P. C., makes it imperative that bail should be granted subject to certain conditions.

9. Section 497 (as amended) first gives a discretion to the Court (particularly Magistrates) to order release on bail even in cases of nonbailable offences. This prima facie gives a Court both power to grant bail and power to refuse bail. But such a wide discretion is to some extent controlled by two restrictions. Sub-section (1) provides that if;

there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life,

then he shall not be released. On the other hand, Sub-section (2) provides that if:

there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a nonbailable offence,

the accused shall be released on bail. Sub-section (4) provides that if, after the conclusion of the trial, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty, he shall be released. It is obvious that whe