ORDER : 1. The petnr. is under trial on charges of criminal breach of trust as a public servant. He was arrested on 10-9-1949. Applns. for bail were rejected by the Cts. below and on 9-10-1949, a petn. was made to this Ct. The challan had not been submitted when the previous applns. were made and on 11th November the learned counsel withdrew the petn. in this Ct. as the presentation of challans was then imminent and it was considered proper that an appln. should be made initially in the trial Ct. after the presentation. Five challans were put up on 21st November 1949 and numbered 388, 389, 390, 394 and 399. Out of these three viz. 388, 394 and 399 have been consolidated for convenience. The accused applied for bail in all these cases but the appln. was rejected by the learned Sub-divisional Mag., Neemuch, and the petnrs. has come up to this Ct. with three petns. under S. 498, Cr. P. C. This order will dispose of the three petns. 2. A preliminary objection is raised by the learned Govt. Advocate that S. 498, Cr. P. C. gives concurrent powers to the H. C. and the Ct. of Session; and while not denying the powers of this Ct. to deal with the matter he made at strong plea that the practice of this Ct. not to entertain such a petn. unless the subordinate Ct. of concurrent jurisdiction has been approached in the first instance may not be departed from. It was conceded by the petnr's learned counsel that in ordinary circumstances the objection was unanswerable; but, be contended that the learned Ses. J. had rejected the previous petn. on the ground that the offence was of a nature which would not admit of the petnr's release on bail; and at the present stage the approach to the Sess. J. in the first instance would have been a mere formality which in the circumstances of the case ought to be dispensed with. The petnr. was in custody possibly for justifiable reasons for over two months before the challans was presented and it is conceded that the matter in issue involves going into accounts of a large magnitude. J. in the first instance would have been a mere formality which in the circumstances of the case ought to be dispensed with. The petnr. was in custody possibly for justifiable reasons for over two months before the challans was presented and it is conceded that the matter in issue involves going into accounts of a large magnitude. The petnr's learned counsel brought to my notice the long time taken in the examination of a single witness and made a plea for elimination of the delay involved in an approach to the Ses. J. which in view of his previous order must needs be futile. I think that there is considerable force in this plea and shall proceed to consider the propriety of the petnr's prayer for release. 3. It would in my view be improper to consider the merits of the case itself at this stage and normally according to the view taken by me in similar cases, the wide powers conferred by S. 498, Cr. P. C. are not intended to be exercised in an arbitrary manner; but judicially, and so as not to make a violent departure from the provisions of S. 497 of the Code. This, I may add with respect, is the ratio decidendi of decisions of H. Cs. in India of which I would refer to K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor, 54 all. 115: (a. i. R. (18) 1931 all. 504: 33 Cr. l. J. 94 F. B.), Keshav Vasudeo v. Emperor, 35 Bom. l. B. 1072: (a. i. R. (20) 1933 Bom. 492: 35 Cr. l. j. 539; Ashraf Ali v. Emperor, 42 Cal. 25: (a. i. R. (2) 1915 Cal. 784: 16 Cr. l. j. 215), H.M. Boudville v. Emperor, 2 Rang. 546: (a. i. R. (12) 1925 Rang. 129: 26 Cr. l. j. 427). Section 498, as I look at it, provides for cases in which considerations other than the gravity of the case make it expedient that the accused should have freedom during the trial, and the plea for the petnr. really is that the voluminous accounts which go to form the foundation of the case need explanation which the accused alone can give and it is in the interests of justice that the counsel should have the accused at hand to explain them. really is that the voluminous accounts which go to form the foundation of the case need explanation which the accused alone can give and it is in the interests of justice that the counsel should have the accused at hand to explain them. There may, it is said, be other papers and documents which may have to be looked into for the defence of the accused and the defence would naturally be hampered if the accused remains in custody during the trial. On a priori consideration of the case as laid, I find that the plea is not without reason: and there is no ground for a fear that the accused would abscond or tamper with the evidence. 4. I direct that the accused be released on his furnishing a bond for appearance with one or more sureties in a sum of Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand) to the satisfaction of the trial Ct.