Short Note : 1. This is an application for grant of bail. 2. The prosecution alleged that there is enough evidence against the applicant of his having committed an offence punisable under the defence of India Rules. The only contention raised here is that since the prosecution has not filed any challan though sixty days have elapsed after the arrest of the applicant he has to be released on bail u/s. 167 (2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Held: The Madhya Pradesh Essential Articles (Exhibition of Prices and Price Control Order, 1973 was promulgated in exercise of powers under rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules. The Order applied to dealers dealing in essential articles. An 'essential article' as defined under clauses 2 (c) means the article specified from time to time in the schedule. 'Schedule' means a schedule appended to the Order. Now, when the Order was promulgated, sugar was not included in the schedule and was not an essential article. Sugar as an essential article was introduced in the schedule by an amendment which came into force on February 7, 1974. This position continued and sugar remained an essential article till March 12, 1976, when by an order duly published by the Government sugar was taken out from the schedule. The breach complained of is of the date, January 10, 1976 when admittedly sugar was declared to be an essential article under the order. 3. By virtue of the Fourth Amendment to the defence and Internal Security of India Rules, the provisions of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable to breaches of Rules committed under the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules. The amendment is as under: 104-A. Special provision regarding custody after arrest.- The provisions of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (2 of 1974), shall not apply to a person who is arrested for alleged contravention of any provisions of these rule or of any order made there under, if such person had been, after such arrest, produced before a Magistrate who is competent to try the case or commit it for trial and the initial order for the detention of such person in custody had been made by the Magistrate before whom he was so produced. 4. 4. At present we are concerned with the right of the accused with respect to bail when sugar was an essential commodity and the special provisions of rule 184 of the Defence of India Rules applied. 5. It is not necessary for me to decide at this stage whether the liability to be prosecuted servived if the sugar was taken out from the schedule during the course of the trial. The only question that calls for consideration is whether the sub-rule (b) of rule 184 of the Defence of India Rules would be applicable to such cases. Sub-rule (b) reads as under: "Where any such provision of these rules or orders made thereunder as the Central Government or the State Government may by notified order specify in the behalf, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such contravention". 6. Since sugar is no longer an essential article there could be no notification with respect to it seeking to specify it. It is inherent in the rule that the specification would be of the order-in force and not one which has been repealed and ceased to be effective. It also does not appear to be the intention that for the articles which are no longer considered essential, the stringent provisions of rule 184 of the Defence of India Rules should be invoked. The result would be that sub-rule (b) would not apply to the case. The prosecution had the notice of the application and it entered appearance. The matter when considered de hors clause (b) of rule 184 of the Defence of India Rules would be simple enough and the applicant would be entitled to bail. The breach is punishable with fine or imprisonment if it is held that the liability existed for prosecution. I am clearly of the opinion that bail ought to be granted in the case. 7. I therefore, direct that the applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) with one surety in the like amount. Petition allowed.