ORDER Oza, J. - 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their release on bail. 2. At the time of hearing of this petition learned counsel who appeared for the State filed an application raising a preliminary objection on the maintainability of this petition. The objection raised on behalf of the State is that as these applicants have earlier moved the Sessions Court under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, they cannot now file an application before this Court under section 439 as they could move either to High Court or Court of Sessions and having moved the Court of Sessions their right to move for bail under section 439 is exhausted. Learned counsel for the State in support of his contention placed reliance on a decision reported in Amiya Kumar Sen v. State of West Bengal (1979 Cr. L. J. 288). 3. Learned counsel for the applicants on the other hand contended that although in section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the word used is "or" but it appears that in the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure "or" has been used in a same which does not mean that it excludes. On the contrary it is used meaning "and". Learned counsel also contended that this question was considered by this Court in Misc. Criminal case No. 346 of 1979 (Bhagirath v. State) and it has been held that "or" used in section 439 is in a sense which means "and" and this objection therefore cannot be accepted. 4. It was also contended that similar language is used in section 397 of the Code but as the Legislature intended that the revisional powers could be exercised only by the Sessions Court or the High Court and both could not exercise the powers against the same order clause (3) has been specifically provided in section 397. This clearly goes to show that where ever the Legislature intended to restrict the exercise of jurisdiction, they have specifically provided and this also goes to show that the Legislature used the word "or" in a sense which means "and". This clearly goes to show that where ever the Legislature intended to restrict the exercise of jurisdiction, they have specifically provided and this also goes to show that the Legislature used the word "or" in a sense which means "and". It was also contended that a similar language was used in section 498 and section 498 has been on the statute book for a long and there is no decision which could be referred to support the objection raised by the learned counsel for the State. 5. The decision on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel i.e. 1979 Cr. L. J. 288, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was considering the language of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their Lordships considering the language of section 438 held that if a person makes an application to the Sessions Court and Sessions Court rejects an application under section 438, a fresh application cannot be made to the High Court on the same grounds. So far as section 438 is concerned this objection was raised before me and in the decision of Misc. Criminal case No. 346 of 1979; decided on 31-7-1979 this Court held that even with regard to section 438 no such restriction could be read in the provision and have not followed this decision of the Calcutta High Court. 6. As regards section 439 in this decision itself their lordship held: “Our attention has been drawn to some of the sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1913, namely, Ss. 439 and 397. In section 439 we get that the Code gives special powers to the High Court and the Court of Sessions in the matter of bail as stated then: and the language used is 'The High Court or the Court of Sessions may direct ............" Here the conjunction "or" has been used in non-alternative sense equivalent to "and". The question of its use in the alternative sense does not arise and the language used clearly says that it has been wood non-alternative sense. In that section the Courts are vested with powers With regard to S. 397 of the Code. we again find that by this provision the High Court and the Sessions Judge have been vested With powers of revision. In that section the Courts are vested with powers With regard to S. 397 of the Code. we again find that by this provision the High Court and the Sessions Judge have been vested With powers of revision. The language used here is the High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record............". Here again it is quite clear that both the: High Court and the: Sessions Judge are empowered to exercise revisional jurisdiction as stated there In this case: also the question of alternative forum or choice does not arise. Here the word "or" has been clearly used in non-alternative sense to mean "and". In this connection we find similar use of the word "or" in section 398 of the Code. The question of choice in that section does not arise But sub-section (3) of section 399 of the Code puts restriction to the right of the petitioner where it has been stated that the decision of the Sessions Judge on an application for revision shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of the applicant shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court, Although coordinate powers have been given to the High Court and the Session Judge, the approach of the appellant to, both the forums has been barred as already stated. Although two forums were: vested with powers, the applicant has been given the choice to select one of the forums". Section 439 of the Code provides:- (1) A High Court or Court of Sessions may direct:- (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section. (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified, provided that the High Court or the Court of Sessions shall, before granting ball to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice. (2) A High Court or Court of Sessions may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. The language used in this provision clearly used the word "or". In section 397 also the same word "or" has been used:- (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or paised, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bailor on his own bond pending the examination of the record. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them, This clearly goes to show that this word "or" has been used in the same sence in both these provisions. In the decision reported in 1979 Cr. In the decision reported in 1979 Cr. L.J. 288 their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court have considered the use of word "or" in English language and it was found by their Lordships that this term could be used in four ways i.e. "(a) An alternative or exclusive sense; (b) An inclusive or non-alternative sense where 'or' is merely equivalent to 'and'; (c) To indicate that one word is synonymaus or nearly synonymous with another and (d) As an equivalent to 'otherwise'.” and it is in this context that we have to understand in what sense the Legislature, when used this term in the Code of Criminal Procedure, used it. In section 397 sub-clause (3) has been specifically enacted. This sub-clause of section 397 specifically lays down that If an application under this section has been made by a person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no other application by the same person shall be entertained by other of them. If what is contended by the learned counsel for the State that "or" has been used in a usense in which it excludes the other is accepted this sub-clause (3) of section 397 would be redundant and it is well settled that the language has to be interpreted in a manner in which no provision is rendered redundant. This shows in what sense the Legislature has used the term "or" and in this view of the matter as the Legislature chose not to enact a clause like sub-clause (3) of section 397 in section 439, the only inference will be that this word "or" has been used in a sense which will mean "and" and there is no restriction for an applicant to approach this Court under section 439 of the Code inspite of the fact that he has approached the Sessions Court under the same provision and that application has been rejected. On this aspect of the matter the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh and others State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179 are material although in that case the question before their Lordships was exercise of powers under section 439 sub-clause (2) but their Lordships while considering the language of section 397 observed:- "It is significant to note that under section 397. Cr. Cr. P. C. of the new Code while the High Court and the Session Judge have the concurrent powers of revision, it is expressly provided under sub-section (3) of that section that when an application under that section has been made by any person to the High Court or to the session Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. This is the position explicitly made clear under the new Code with regard to revision when the authorities have concurrent powers. Similar was the position under section 435, Cr. P. C. of the old Code the High Court. a Session Judge or a District Magistrate. Although under section 435 (1), Cr. P. C. of the old Code the High Court, a Sessions Judge or a District Magistrate had concurrent powers of revision, the High Court's jurisdiction in revision was left untouched. There is no provision in the new Code excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court in dealing with an application under section 439 (2), Cr. P. C. to cancel bail after the Sessions Judge had been moved and an order had been passed by him granting bail. The High Court has undoubtedly jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 439 (2), Cr. P.C. for cancellation of bail notwithstanding that the Sessions Judge had earlier admitted the appellants to bail." and this observation does indicate that the word "or" used in section 439, could not be interpreted in the restrictive sense in which the learned counsel for the State wants this word to be interpreted. 7. In the old Criminal Procedure Code before the present amendment, the provision for grant of bail by the High Court and Sessions Court was section 498 and the language used in section 498 was:- "The amount of every bond executed under this Chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case, and shall not be excessive, and the High Court or Court of Sessions may, in any case whether there be an appeal on conviction or not, direct that any person be admitted to ball, or that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate be reduced. (2) A High Court or Court of Session may cause any period who has been admitted to bail under sub-section (1) to be arrested and may commit him to custody." Here again the word used is "or" and it is clear that it was not used in an alternative or exclusive sense as learned counsel appearing for the State had to frankly concede that even under section 498 of the old Code there is no decision of a High Court taking the view that the learned counsel for the State intends to contend. I therefore see no substance in this objection raised by the learned counsel for the State. It is therefore rejected. 8. As regards the merits of the matter, looking to the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that an application submitted by other accused persons in the same matter has been rejected by this Court, I see no reason to entertain the application. It is therefore rejected.