Sharma, J. - (1.) 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. " 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. It is true that the Magistrate concerned and the Sessions Judge have rejected the applicants' application for bail. I, however, do not understand what the learned Magistrate means by saying that the application of the applicants for bail was pre-mature. If the application of the present applicants was pre-mature, the application of the other nine accused was likewise pre-mature, but the learned Magistrate granted them bail. The learned Sessions Judge has simply said that because from the first information report it appears that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants had committed the offence under sec. 307, which was punishable with transportation for life, they could not be released. Of course, on this ground an application under sec. 497 could be rejected, but the Sessions Court and the High Court under sec. 498 have a much wider power, and can grant bail even in cases punishable with death or transportation for life. In this case, bail has already been granted to nine other accused. Of course, the learned Sessions Judge could say that there were no special grounds for granting bail under sec. 498 in a case like the present, but simply to reject an application under sec. 498 off hand because the offence under which the accused is challaned is punishable with transportation for life is not proper for a Court of Session or a High Court. There does not appear to be any substantial difference between the case of the three applicants and those of others who have already been released on bail, so far as the question of bail is concerned. The accused are cultivators within the jurisdiction of the lower courts, and there is no allegation that they will abscond or that there was any danger of their tampering with prosecution evidence. The main anxiety of the courts of law in criminal cases is that an accused should not fly from justice, and should be available when the trial is held, and the judgment is pronounced. The reason why in very serious cases bail has not been made the rule appears to be that it is more likely in serious cases for the accused to fly from justice if he is left at large than in cases of petty nature. In the present case, as has been said above, it has not been shown that there was danger of the accused's absconding or their tampering with prosecution evidence. Taking into consideration, along with the above circumstances, the fact that the accused are cultivators by profession and have got their cultivation within the jurisdiction of the lower courts, and the time for the harvesting of the kharif crop is drawing near, and nine of the 12 accused, who made the joint application for bail, have been admitted to bail, I think justice will be met if the applicants are also released on bail, provided they furnish two sureties each in the sum of Rs. 2000/- each to the satisfaction of the Extra Magistrate, Deeg, and also execute personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 4000/- each. .;