The Criminal Application No. 183 of 1985 can be disposed of along with the Criminal Original Application No. 184 of 1985 by a common judgment and order in the nature and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioners in both the cases have been arrested in connection with Chandmari P. S. Case No. 89 of 1985 (GR Case No. 1216 of 1985 under section 396, IPC). The learned Magistrate rejected the prayers of the petitioners for releasing them on bail, hence these petitions. 3. Shri P. C. Kakati, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to bail under Proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167, Cr.P.C. (for short the "Proviso'') as the charge sheet has not been submitted within 90 days from the date of first remand; and that the proviso is man­datory therefore the Court has no discretion to refuse bail; and that the proviso is for the protection of the personal freedom. The learned Advocate General his submitted that Section 439A was brought into force in the State of Assam by the Assam Act III of 1983, Criminal Procedure Code (Assam Amendment) Act, 1985 and that in view of the Section 439A, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. 4. The question which arises for consideration is what is the effect of section 439A. Mr. Kakati has contended that the Proviso is independent of Section 439A and that the Proviso is not controlled by Section 439A. He has referred to a decision of this High Court reported in 1975 Cri. L. J. 647 (DB), Ved Kumar Seth vs. State of Assam. In that case, it has been held that the mandatory provision in proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of S. 167 to the effect that on the expiry of the period of sixty days in custody, the accused person shall be released on bail if fee is prepared to and does furnish bail, is not controlled by pro­visions of Section 437(1). The provision of sub-section (1) of S, 437 is applicable only in the case of an accused person whose period of detention in custody has not completed sixty days. 5. The provision of sub-section (1) of S, 437 is applicable only in the case of an accused person whose period of detention in custody has not completed sixty days. 5. The provision of Section 439A is as follows : "439A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, no person - (a) who, being accused or suspected of committing an offence under any of the following Sections, namely, Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 124A, 153A, 302, 303,304, 307, 326, 333 363. 364, 365, 367, 368, 392, 394, 395, 396, 399, 412, 433, 437. 449, & 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 25, 26,27,28,29,30 and 31 of the Arms Act, 1959 is arrested or appears or is brought before a Court, or (b) who, having any reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of committing an offence as specified in clause (a) has applied to the High Court or Court of Sessions for a direction for his release on bail in the event of his arrest, shall be released on bail, or as the case may 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 Sessions; 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 (c); (ii) that such person is under the age of sixteen years or a woman 01 a sick or an infirm person; (iii) that the Court including High Court or the Court of Session for reasons to be recorded in writing is satisfied that there are exceptional and sufficient grounds to release or direct the release of the accused on bail". (Emphasis added) 6. The expression "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code'' in section 439A" means notwithstanding any law in the Code to the contrary, relating to bail. Therefore, under Section 439A, notwithstanding any law in the Code (Cr.P. C) to the contrary, relating to bail, no person accused of or sus­pected of the commission of any offences specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 439A is arrested or appears or is bro­ught before a Court shall be released on bail except as provi­ded there under. Therefore, under Section 439A, notwithstanding any law in the Code (Cr.P. C) to the contrary, relating to bail, no person accused of or sus­pected of the commission of any offences specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 439A is arrested or appears or is bro­ught before a Court shall be released on bail except as provi­ded there under. The offences specified in section 439A include some bailable offences, for example, Section 463, 431, IPC etc. 7. Under Section 436 where a person accused of a baila­ble offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an offi­cer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought be­fore a Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custo­dy of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail. That is, in bailable offence, the Court or police officer is to release the accused on bail, if the conditions provided therein are satisfied. Therefore, Section 436 is a law in the Code, which is contrary to Section 439 A. But in respect of any bailable offence specified in Section 439 A, such a person shall not be released on bail in view of the provision under Section 439 A except as provided there under. 8. The proviso reads : "(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satis­fied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding, - (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter." 9. The Proviso relates to bail and every person released on bail under the Proviso shall be deemed to have been released under the Provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Code for the purpose of that Chapter. The Chapter XXXIII relates to the "Provisions as to Ball and Bonds. In Chapter XXXIII, Sections 436 and 437 are in respect of bail for bailable and non-bailable offences respec­tively. Section 439 provides special powers of the High Court or the Court of Session regarding bail. 10. If the Proviso or Section 436 is read independently and conditions mentioned therein are satisfied, an accused is entitled to bail as of right. But such a person accused of any bailable offence specified in Section 439A is not entitled to bail as of gut if Section 436 is read with Section 439A. 11. The next question which arises for consideration is whether a person a ceased of any offence specified in Section 439A will be entitled to bail under the Proviso. The Proviso relates to bail and the bail granted under the Proviso can be cancel led in suitable case. See Basir vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC JJ. In Sisir (supra), the Supreme Court has also held that it is nece­ssary that a Court should proceed on the basis that the accused is to the deemed to have been released under section 437(1) and/or (2). Section 439A relates to bail and the Proviso is also another Provi­sion of the Code relating to bail. Therefore, the Proviso is a Jaw which is contrary to Section 439A in respect of the offences described therein. Section 439A is to dispense with the laws relating to bail, namely Sections 436, 437,439 etc. including the Proviso with regards to the offences mentioned in Section 439A. Therefore the effect of Section 439A is that the entitlement or the right of an accu­sed person to be released on bail under the Proviso and other provisions of bail in the Code with regard to the offences speci­fied under section 439A has been excluded; and that the power of the Court regarding bail will only be governed by section 439A non absentee (notwithstanding) any law to the contrary in respect of the offences specified in Section 439A. 12. In view of the above discussion, the decision in Ved Kumar, 1975 Crl. L. J. 647, is not applicable to the present case. 12. In view of the above discussion, the decision in Ved Kumar, 1975 Crl. L. J. 647, is not applicable to the present case. In that case, provision of section 439A which came into force in 1984 was not available for discussion. In this view of the ma­tter, the contention of the petitioner must fail. 13. Mr. Kakati has drawn my attention to a decision of this Court passed in Criminal Original Application No 146 of 1985 in connection with Chandmari P. S. Case No. 89 of 1985 in which the petitioners are also involved. In that case, it was ordered : "the Chief Judicial Magistrate Gauhati is directed to release the peti­tioner, Kamadev Sharma on bail if he was arrested on 15.5.1985 or if the Proviso (a) to 167(2) is attracted". The order was pa­ssed by me. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate released Kama­dev. Mr. Kakati has submitted that in view of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate releasing Kamadev, the refusal to grant bail of the other accused petitioners involved in the same case is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. IB the said order the provision of Section 439A was not discussed. It is also not known on what grounds Kamadev has been released on bail. Therefore, lam of the view that I need not clarify my said order and also give a decision on the submissions of the learned counsel. 14. I have perused the records and also perused the orders of the learned Magistrate. I do not feel discussing any further, as I am not inclined to grant bail at this stage. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions are dismissed. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of Criminal Ori­ginal Application No. 184 of 1985.