Doom Dooma Police Station registered a case being Doom Dooma P. S. Case No. 26 of 1985 under Section 147/325, IPC against the respondents and one Shri Rajendra Rai in connection with an occurrence which took place on 19.2.1985. The respondents and Sri Rajendra Rai surrendered on 23.2. 85 before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia. As the offences were bailable, the learned Magistrate released them on bail on 23.2.85 under Section 436 Cr PC. During the investigation, the injured Annaram Pareek died in St. Luk's Hospital. Therefore, the Investigating Officer made a request to the learned Magis­trate that an offence under Section 302, IPC be allowed to be added in the case and also for allowing them to arrest the res­pondent in connection with the case. On 4.3.1985 the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate passed an order allowing the prayer of the Investigating Officer. The relevant portion of the Order runs as follows : "Let Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code be added along with other Sections of Law. As Section 302 or the Indian Penal Code is a non-bailable offence, hence the prayer of 1/0 is allowed. Permission is granter to rearrested the accused persons as prayed." 2. On 6.3.85, the respondents and Rajendra Rai filed Cril. Misc. Case No. 66 of 1985 in the Court of Session; Dibrugarh under Section 438, Cr. PC for granting pre-arrest bail. Records show that on 6.3.85, the present petitioner, Krishnalal Pareek also filed an objection against the granting of the pre-arrest bail. The objection of the present petitioner was registered as Crimi­nal Misc. Case No. 68 of 1985 treating the objection as one for cancellation of the pre-arrest bail. On 6.3.85, the learned Sessi­ons Judge passed an order under Section 438 directing the O.C., Doom Dooma P.S. to allow the accused to go on bail of Rs. 6000/--each with one local surety of each, to his own satisfaction, in the event of their arrest, in connection with Doom Dooma P.S. Case No. 26/85. The learned Sessions Judge also passed an order on 24.4.85 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 68 of 1985 that the petition for cancellation of bail stood rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, dated 6.3.85 and 24.4.85 the petitioner, Krishaalal Pareek has filed the revision petition in this Court. 3. Mr. The learned Sessions Judge also passed an order on 24.4.85 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 68 of 1985 that the petition for cancellation of bail stood rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, dated 6.3.85 and 24.4.85 the petitioner, Krishaalal Pareek has filed the revision petition in this Court. 3. Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was not maintainable, and that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajastnan, AIR 1985 SC 969 , the order of the learned Sessions Judge granting bail cannot be allo­wed to stand. Mr. S. Birmiwal, learned counsel for the respon­dent has submitted that in view of the order passed by the learned Magistrate to arrest the accused persons, they had no other alternative but to approach the Sessions Court for the pre-arrest bail and that the decision in Pokar Ram (Supra) cannot be applied in the present case. 4. The question which arises for consideration is whether the order of the Sessions Judge granting the pre-arrest bail can be allowed to stand. The learned Sessions Judge granted the pre-arrest bail on the grounds (a) that the accused persons who were already granted the bail on 23.2.85 had to face rear rest under order dated 4.3.85 without cancelling of their earlier bail: (b) that no notice was given to the accused to show cause as to why the bail bonds should not be cancelled; (c) that the learned Magistrate straightway gave the direction to the police to arrest the accused under the same case; (d) that the status of the petitioner would not be changed even if the offence was converted into one under section 302, IPC from that of Section 325, IPC; (e) that there was no report against the accused for violation or misuse or abuse of the direction of the Court. 5. Under Section 436, there is no provision for cancella­tion of bail. However, under sub-section (2) of Section 436, the Court may refuse to release the accused on bail on the subsequent occasion in the same case, if the person has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bond as regards the time and place of attendance. Section 436, Cr.P.C. provides that the person accused of bailable offence shall be granted bail. Section 436, Cr.P.C. provides that the person accused of bailable offence shall be granted bail. The grant of bail is automatic and it can be claimed as a matter of right by such persons ( AIR 1967 SC 1639 , Ratilal vs. Assistant Customs Collector). There is no express provision for cancellation of bail under this section. Therefore, no action for cancellation of bail is contemplated under this section. There is good reason behind the scheme. When a bail has been made claimable as a matter of right, the idea of cancellation is re­pugnant to such "right". If any accused person who, after having the benefit under this section, plays false to the con­ditions of the bail-bonds executed by him, may be dealt with under sub-section (2) of Section 436, Cr P.C. 6. Section 437 relates to non-bailable offence. Sub-section (5) of Section 437 provides for cancellation of bail of the per­son who has been released on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 437 A new section, namely, Section 439A has been inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Assam Amendment) Act, 1984. Section 439A provides that notwithstanding any thing contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no person who, having any reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusa­tion of committing an offence under section 302, IPC and/or any of the offences as specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 439A, has applied to the High Court or Court of Session for a direction for his release on bail in the event of his arr­est, shall be directed to be released on bail, except on one or more of the following grounds, namely : (i) that the Court including the High Court or the Court of Session, for reasons to be recorded in writing is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for belie­ving that such person is not guilty of any offence specified in clause (a); (ii) that such person is under the age of sixteen years or a woman or a sick or an infirm person; (iii) that the Court including High Court or the Court of Session, for reason to be recorded in writing is satisfied that there are exceptional and sufficient grounds to rele­ase or direct the release of the accused oil bail. 7. 7. In the present case, the learned Magistrate granted 'bail to the respondent and Shri Rajendra Rai under section 436, Cr.P.C. as, at the material time, the offences accused of were bailable. But when the offence under section 302, IPC was added or inclu­ded in the registered offences, the character and complexion of the case had distinctively changed. The case in which the accused were hitherto entitled to grant of bail as a matter of right, had been converted into one in which the grant of bail become dis­cretionary. I am of the view that the benefit which the respon­dents derived from and was confined to a set of circumstances governed by section 436, Cr.P.C. could not be extended to cover a different set of circumstances not covered by section 436, Cr.P.C. but exclusively covered by different sections of the Code, namely. Sections 437, 438 and 439, Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, the bail order passed in favour of the respondents can be held to be inoperative in respect of the offence under section 302, IPC. The question of pre-arrest bail for the offence under section 302, IPC, in the circumstances of the case, shall attract the restric­tive provisions of Sections 437 and 439A, Cr.P.C.. 8. The records, however, show that the learned Magistrate cancelled the earlier bail by passing an order dated 16.3.85. This order was subsequent to the date of impugned order of the lear­ned Sessions Judge. Be that as it may, the order dated 4.3.85 passed by the learned Magistrate for re-arrest of the accused rema­ins unreserved and hence final. 9. In Pokar Ram (Supra), the Supreme Court observed : "Before we conclude this judgment, it must be made distinctly clear that some very compelling circumstances must be made out for granting bail to a person accused of committing murder and that too when the investiga­tion is in progress. In fact, the Investigating Officer did not even attempt to attest the appellant though the ini­tial accusation was under S. 307 IPC punishable with imprisonment for life. And as soon as the victim of the assault succumbed to his injuries and an offence under S. 302 was registered, promptly an application for antici­patory bail was made and granted. If such an order is allowed to stand, faith of public in administration of justice is likely to be considerably shaken. And as soon as the victim of the assault succumbed to his injuries and an offence under S. 302 was registered, promptly an application for antici­patory bail was made and granted. If such an order is allowed to stand, faith of public in administration of justice is likely to be considerably shaken. Therefore, we have no option but to cancel the order granting anti­cipatory bail." The Supreme Court has laid down that some very compelling circumstances must be made out for granting bail to a per­son accused of committing murder and that too when the investi­gation is in progress. In the present case, the investigation is/ was in progress. We may go further then the Supreme Court in view of Section 439A. Under Section 439A, no person shall be released on bail or granted pre-arrest bail save as provided un­der that section. In the present case the learned Sessions Judge has also not considered the provision of Section 439A. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be allowed to stand. 10 The next question which arises for consideration is what will be effect of the order of this Court on Rajendra Rai who is not a party in the case. Against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 6.3.84 granting respondents and Rajendra Rai pre-arrest bail, the petitioner has filed the present petition against the respondents only without making Rajendra Rai a party. If the revision petition is allowed, the finality of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in favour of Rajendra Rai who is entitled to retain advantage, will be disturbed, In the State of Punjab vs. Joginder, AIR 1963 SC 913 the Supreme Court held : "In our opinion, the true position arising, if the pre­sent appeal by the State Government should succeed, would be that the finality of the orders passed in the other three writ petitions by the Punjab High Court would not be disturbed and that those three successful petitioners would be entitled to retain the advantages which they had secured by the decision in their favour not being challanged by an appeal being filed. That how­ever would not help the present respondent who would be bound by our judgment in this appeal and besides, so far as the general law is concerned as applicable to eve­ryone other than the three writ petitioners (who would be entitled to the benefit of decisions in their favour braving attained finality), the law will be as laid down by this Court. We therefore overrule the preliminary objection." The case before the Supreme Court was that the High Court dismissed 4 (four) writ petitions by a common judgment giving relief to all the petitioners. However, the State preferred appeal to the Supreme Court against the order in only one peti­tion. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, the respondents would be bound by our judgment in this petition and not Rajendra Rai. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the order 6.3.85 of the learned Sessions Judge granting the pre-arrest bail to the respondents is quashed and set aside and bail-bonds, if any, furnished by them are cancelled. This however, shall neither cause any prejudice nor debar the respondents if they are arrested, from moving applications for enlarging them on bail before the appropriate Court and such Court may decide the matter on merits and according to law. It is ordered accordingly. I was away from the Principal seat for holding court in the outlying Bench at Imphal Circuit Town This has delayed the delivery of the judgment.