JUDGMENT 1. - This petition filed under Section 438, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for brevity, Cr.P.C.) by the petitioners, Smt. Shobha Bhardwaj & Prem Prakash Bhardwaj, sprung from a report lodged by the one. Ramesh Chand Meena at police station Malviya Nagar (Jaipur) on 29-4-1989 about an incident took place at about 6.30 A.M. Upon the said report, a case was registered against the petitioners for the offences under Section 304, 286 IPC and 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 1988 (for short, 'the Order, 1988'). 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners are the tenants of garage portion in plot No. 144 situated in Nandpuri Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur which has been used for the storage of gas cylinders. The facts narrated in the report are that on 26-4-1989 small and big gas cylinders were brought in a matador and were being unloaded in the said garage where Samunder Singh & Ramgopal who were alleged to be the employees of the petitioners' firm named M/s Shruti Gas Agency, Tonk Fatak, Jaipur, used to live; and that, these two named persons also used to change gas from one cylinder to another; and on the date of incident, when these persons were filling up gas from one cylinder to another, the informant is said to have felt spreading smell of gases-thereupon the informant is said to have directed to stop the work but, they closed door and continued to exchange of gas from one cylinder to another. About three labourers are said to have been sleeping outside the godown. According to the said report, thereafter, within a point of time, the informant heard the explosion voice and on hearing it, the informant went outside and saw that the people were running, the above named two persons, Samunder Singh & Ramgopal were coming outside the godown with flames on their body and that apart, a number of cylinders bursted. 3. At the very outset, I would like to mention that the learned Public Prosecutor obviously failed to point out any evidence so as to say that the act of the petitioners is covered by Section 304, IPC. 3. At the very outset, I would like to mention that the learned Public Prosecutor obviously failed to point out any evidence so as to say that the act of the petitioners is covered by Section 304, IPC. But, at the same time, I must hasten to add that these observations would not preclude the investigating agency from collecting evidence in order to show that the act of the petitioners is covered by Section 304, IPC. However, at this stage I find no evidence so as to say that any offence under Section 304, IPC, seems to have been committed by the petitioners. 4. Confronted with the above, Shri V.S. Gurjar, learned counsel for the petitioner wrangled with his legal quibblings that there is no dispute that the petitioners firm was dealing in handy gases and the same is not covered by the provisions of the Order, 1988 so as to apply the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. This position has been fairly and frankly conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor for obvious reasons. I am also of the opinion that the storing of the handy gas cylinder does not fall within the purview of Rajasthan Petroleum Products (Licensing and Control) Order, 1979 & the Order, 1988, and, therefore, not punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Cooking gas stored in a handy gas cylinder is compressed gas and not liquified petroleum products. The matter is governed by the Explosive Act, 1884 and Gas Cylinders Rule 1981 framed by the Central Government as is contended by the petitioners in bail petition. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor then contended vehemently that the petitioners were unlawfully dealing with a gas being supplied by various Oil Companies and the same is covered by Control Order, 1988. It cannot be disputed that the gases produced by any petroleum are covered by the definition of Liquified Petrolium Gas and the various oil Companies have been producing such products which are being used for cooking gas purposes. 6. It cannot be disputed that the gases produced by any petroleum are covered by the definition of Liquified Petrolium Gas and the various oil Companies have been producing such products which are being used for cooking gas purposes. 6. In view of what has been discussed (ut supra), it is thus clear that at this stage while dealing with the bail petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C. what I have to see prima facie is as to whether the petitioners were dealing with gases covered by the Order, 1988 and for that purpose, it is to be seen whether the gases which were found in the handy gas cylinders were petroleum product and so, in these circumstances, a specific querry was made to the learned Public Prosecutor who failed to give any straight forward answer but the Investigating Officer who was also present in court during the course of arguments, stated that there is no such authority in Rajasthan which could and can give such an opinion and because of this reason, the gases seized have been sent to Nagpur for expert opinion. It is thus clear that prima facie upto this stage, there is no evidence on the basis of which it can be said that the gases seized and alleged to be in possession of the petitioners is Liquified Petroleum Gas. In view of these circumstances (ut supra), the learned Public Prosecutor for the obvious reasons apparent from the record failed to satisfy the court about prima facie case against the petitioners for the alleged act of culpability under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Learned counsel for the State then added that the investigation is in progress. 7. As said earlier, during the course of arguments, the Investigating Officer who was present in court, vehemently stressed that the act of the petitioners is covered under Section 304, IPC Looking to the above submission it appears that the investigating officer any how wants to implicate the petitioners fastening incorrect liability with an object to injure and humiliate the petitioners by having them arrested, though on the evidentiary material as it stands in case diary upto this stage, the investigating agency failed to make out a prima facie case of non-bailable offence against the petitioners. 8. 8. However, looking to the conduct of the investigating agency, keeping in view all the pervading circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the petitioners have successfully brought special circumstances convassing me to exercise the powers of discretion under Section 438, Cr.P.C. in their favour. Accordingly, I feel it justified to allow this bail petition. Order accordingly. 9. The SHO/Arresting Office/Investigating Officer, Police Station Malviya Nagar, (Jaipur), in F.I.R. No. 69/89 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners namely, Smt. Sobha Bhardwaj and Prem Prakash Bhardwaj, they be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5 000/- (Rupees five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- 1. That, the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. That, the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and 3. That, the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. Bail Granted. *******