JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - These are two applications made by two of the accused per-sons in what is known as the Meerut. Conspiracy Case in which a large number of persons has been charged with the commission of an offence u/s 121-A, I. P.C. namely a conspiracy to deprive the King-Emperor of His sovereignty of British India. The maximum sentence laid down in the section is transportation for life.

2. The two applicants were allowed to appear in person to argue their applications as they were not represented by counsel in the Court below or in this Court. In issuing the orders for the appearance of the applicants we took care to say that the permission to appear was not to be treated as a precedent for all accused persons in all oases.

3. A short history of the proceedings in Court against the applicants is as follows.

4. The applicant Mr. Nimbkar and several others were arrested on 20th March 1929 and have since been in custody as under-trial prisoner's. The applicant Mr. Hutchinson was arrested about three months later on 14th June 1929, and has been since in custody for nearly two years. The proceedings before the Magistrate started on 12th June 1929 and the order for commitment to the Court of Session was passed on 14th January 1930. In the Sessions Court the trial is still pending. About the middle of March 1931 the examination of the prosecution witnesses was finished and the statements of the accused persons were begun to be taken. So far, in the course of a month the statements of only six accused persons have been taken down.

5. There are about 30 accused persons and the number of defence witnesses cited is about 300. Mr. Nimbkar told us that he did not cite any witnesses and proposed to apply for his witnesses to be summoned after he has been let out on bail if such an order be made in his favour.

6. The prosecution examined nearly 300 witnesses. It can be taken without much argument that the examination of the defence witnesses will not take such long time as the prosecution witnesses have taken. But the Court will be addressed at length on behalf of the accused persons, some of whom are represented by counsel. This will take some time bearing in mind the fact that there are nearly 300 prosecution witnesses, and nearly 2,600 exhibits which having been printed occupy 7500 printed foolscap pages. Besides this printed material there are books and news-papers and other materials on which arguments will be based for the accused persons. As the defence proposes to produce witnesses and to otherwise produce evidence, the Crown will have a right of reply and this will take considerable time. Then the learned Judge will naturally take a good deal of time to write out his judgment. In this view, the trial is very likely to last throughout this whole year.

7. Having stated the nature of the case and the history of its trial I will proceed to consider the powers of the High Court in ordering the bail in respect of an accused person.

8. The High Court's power is conferred on it by Section 498, Criminal P.C. and is entirely unfettered by any conditions. It has been argued on behalf of the prosecution by Mr. Kemp, the learned Counsel who has been especially appointed to conduct the prosecution at Meerut that the High Court's power, though not limited in language, is to be exercised having regard to the provisions of Section 497, Criminal P.C. The learned Counsel cited two oases from the Calcutta High Court and one decided by the Rangoon High Court. While the Calcutta cases do support his contention, the Pull Bench decision of the Rangoon High Court does not entirely support him.

9. Speaking for myself, I think it very unwise to make an attempt to lay down any particular rules for the guidance of the High Court, having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the Court entirely unfettered. The reason for this action on the part of the legislature is not far to seek. The High Court might be safely trusted in this mat