Order.- In these two criminal petitions presumably under section 439 2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an order granting bail made by the learned Sessions Judge, Bellary, is sought to be set aside. A perusal of the order of he learned Sessions Judge indicates that he gave a categorical finding that there was a reasonable ground for believing that the accused are guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Nevertheless considering that power to grant bail under section 439 is exclusive and independent of Section 437, the learned Sessions Judge granted bail. The State has come up with the present applications against that order of the learned Sessions Judge. 2. In the previous Code in section 497 which was in pari materia similar to the present section 437 of the Code, there was no exclusion of the High Court or of the Court of Sessions. In other words, both sections 497 and 498 of the previous Code applied to High Court or Court of Sessions. Perhaps, in that situation if a case for refusing bail was made out under section 497, nevertheless bail could be granted under section 498. But, in the present Code section 437 excludes High Court or Court of Sessions and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not called upon to consider the case of the accused for granting or refusing bail under section 437. It appears, in spite of that, the learned Sessions Judge considered the entire evidence and held that there was a reasonable ground for believing that the accused had committed the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. With that finding on record, perhaps it was not open to the learned Sessions Judge but to make an order refusing bail. Any order granting bail under section 439 is a judicial order. Such an order could not be made, if the finding was given that there was a reasonable ground for believing that the accused had committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 3. The learned Sessions Judge granted bail to these accused on two circumstances — (i) that the investigation was belated; and(ii) that the dying declaration did not specify the names of any one of the accused. 3. The learned Sessions Judge granted bail to these accused on two circumstances — (i) that the investigation was belated; and(ii) that the dying declaration did not specify the names of any one of the accused. If these two circumstances were availed of to grant bail, no finding could be recorded, at the initial stage, that there was a reasonable ground for believing that the accused have committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In fact the two findings rendered are contradictory and on that basis the learned State Public Prosecutor pressed that the order granting bail was, prima facie incorrect. 4. Nevertheless, considering the detailed order of the learned Sessions Judge, it may not be possible to take a different view in the present case. In the dying declaration, which was no less an important piece of evidence, none of the accused was named by the deceased. It may be that a satisfactory explanation for that omission may be forthcoming at some stage during trial. At any rate, for the present, that circumstance is clearly in favour of all the accused, as the investigation was a belated one. C.W- 1.1, the main witness who implicated A-1 to A-5 did not name either of them but gave some description regarding their features. There was also some identification at a later stage. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the case is put up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge on 28th February, 1977. The accused are already on bail from several months and it appears they have not misused the concession granted to them. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, I do not think, the order granting bail need be set aside. The two petitions are therefore dismissed. 5. The order has been given in Criminal Petition No. 490 of 1976 and a copy of the same shall be kept in the connected file of Criminal Petition No. 491 of 1976.