JUDGMENT 1. - It was under the orders of this Court dated April 9, 1990 which orders were made in S. B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 682/1990 Bajrang Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan that this court had ordered that the record of the case be - summoned to see as to how in a case of present nature, pre-arrest bail was granted to Uchhav Kanwar by the Additional Sessions Judge. After the said record was received, this Court ordered on June 26, 1990 that notice be given to Uchhab Kanwar as to why pre-arrest bail granted to her be not cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr. P. C. The notice has been given to Uchhab Kanwar and Mr. P. R. S. Rajawat has appeared on her behalf. 2. F. I. R. was lodged by one Rishraj Singh in Police Station Ramganj Mandi District Kotta on 4 2.1989 that he along with other including his father Gokul Singh were in the agricultural fields and were returning from their fields and when they reached near the house of Daryab Singh son of Khuman Singh, accused persons Balwant Singh. Bajrang Singh son of Khuman Singh, Gulab Singh, Shivraj Son of Keshar Singh, Khuman Singh and accused non-petiiioner Uchhab Kanwar encircled them. So far as the accused non-petitioner is concerned, it was alleged in the FIR that when his brother Kalyan Singh came for rescue his father Gokul Singh and sister Bhanwar Bai came to intervene and Balwant Singh, Bajrang Singh and Uchhab Kanwar caused injuries to him. A case was registered and investigation was set in motion. So far as Gokul Singh, father of Rishraj Singh is concerned, he died as a result of the injuries and post-mortem examination war conducted on his dead body. A look at the post-mortem report will show that the deceased Gokul Singh had as many as 9 injuries and first three injuries were incised wound all on the vital part of the body. It may be proper to give the three injuries which are reproduced here as under : 1. Incised wound. 4 x 1/2 x bone deep cutting rt. ear pinner transversely and going deep to skull leading to fracture rt. temp. bone. 2. Incised wound 31/2 x bone deep just below injury No. 1 cutting temporal bone. 3. Incised wound 1.1/2 x 1/2 x bone deep vertical leading fracture to rt. occipital bone. Incised wound. 4 x 1/2 x bone deep cutting rt. ear pinner transversely and going deep to skull leading to fracture rt. temp. bone. 2. Incised wound 31/2 x bone deep just below injury No. 1 cutting temporal bone. 3. Incised wound 1.1/2 x 1/2 x bone deep vertical leading fracture to rt. occipital bone. Memb. torned and congested. Portion of underlying brain lacerated and a big blood clot lying over brain. 3. I have described only three injuries caused by sharp edged weapon and there are five injuries including No. 5 described as incised wound and injury No. 5 was 5x1 almost half thickness of rt. wrist ext. aspect. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died of coma and shock due to injury to vital part i.e. brain and other part of the injured body. After investigation a charge-sheet was filed. So far as Uchhab Kanwar is concerned, she field an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge Kota which was registered as Cr. Application No. 1932/1989 and the pre-arrest bail was allowed to the accused non-petitioner on October 19, 1989. A look at the order dated October 1989 will show that it is a small one para order and it is not known who was the Presiding Officer who allowed bail to the accused-non-petitioner. For the reasons which shall be presently shown it was not a case where pre-arrest bail could have been allowed and it was not a sound exercise of the discretion to have allowed bail under Section 438 Cr. P. C to the accused-non -petitioner in a case of present nature. 4. I have already made a reference to the FIR wherein the accused-non-petitioner is shown to have caused injuries to the deceased A look at the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. all the three injuries were assigned to none-else but Uchhab Kanwar. Rishi Raj Singh in his statement under Section 161 Cr P.C. has stated that when Balwant Singh had given blows by Gandasi, has brother Kalyan Singh came for rescue, Bajrang Singh caused injury with sword. Kalyan Singh had fallen on the ground His father Gokul Singh came for rescue and at that time it was Uchhab Kanwar who had given three to four blows on the head of Gokul Singh with sword. In his own words. Kalyan Singh had fallen on the ground His father Gokul Singh came for rescue and at that time it was Uchhab Kanwar who had given three to four blows on the head of Gokul Singh with sword. In his own words. " esjs firk xksdqyflag ds flj esa rhu pkj txg mPNo ckbZ us ryokj dks ekjh vkSj nkfgus gkFk ds iksps ij Hkh mPNo ckbZ us esjs firk dks ekjhA " Even Jaswant Singh state that Uchhab Kanwar was asked with a sword. He further states that Gokul was also given beating by non-petitioner Uchhab Kanwar. A similar statement has been made by Bhanwar Bai and also by Kalyan Singh. It can therefore be said that there was prima facie material on record from which it could be said at the stage when the learned Addl. Sessions Judge considered the application for pre-arrest bail that it was the accused-non-petitioner who is said to have inflicted blows. I fail to understand as to how in a case of present nature with the allegation against the accused-non-petitioner, as aforesaid, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should have allowed bail under Section 48 Cr.P.C. The law is settled that the learned Sessions Judge and this COurt have concurrent jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 438 Cr. P. C. but the discretion is to be exercised reasonably pending on the facts and circumstances of each case and also the nature of offence. The use of words if it thinks fit in Section 438^1) Cr.P.C. will make it clear that the court must give reasons for making the order. The Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 has laid down the guidelines for grant of anticipatory bail. In the aforesaid-case the Supreme Court has also laid down that nature and seriousness of charge and larger public interest are also some of the considerations which should prevail on the court to exercise discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I had the occasion to consider the aforesaid case in the case of Fakrudin v. Abdul and others, Cr.R.L. (Raj.) 1986 page 234 . It was also an application for cancellation of bail granted under Section 438 Cr. P. C. in case of murder. It was also an application for cancellation of bail granted under Section 438 Cr. P. C. in case of murder. I took a view that looking to the nature of allegations that the accuse I had caused injuries with sword on the head of deceased, anticipatory bail should not have been granted. I have already given the facts of the case and evidence which was collected during the investigation and at the cost of the repetition it may be stated that so far as the accused-non-petitioner is concerned, she caused three injuries with sword on the deceased which led to his death. I fail to understand how in a case of present nature, the Additional Sessions Judge should have allowed bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the accused-non-petitioner, more so without assigning any reason. 5. I am of the opinion that it was not a sound exercise of direction to have allowed pre-arrest bail to Uchhab Kanwar. 6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that she was granted pre-arrest bail on October 19, 1989, almost more than a year ago and there is no material on record that the accused non-petitioner has mis-used the bail and she is a woman and the discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C. larger than the discretion under the proviso to Section 437 Cr P.C. and she could be released bail even in the case of present nature Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the aforesaid case of Fukrudin (supra) wherein while holding that the pre-arrest bail should not have been allowed, this Court taking into consideration the fact that the accused had not misused bail and he was a Government servant had allowed bail to the accused in that case. Learned counsel for the accused-non-petitioner may be allowed bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid case of Fakrudin (supra) while holding that considerations for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are different, than the considerations for grant of pre-arrest under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the accused in that case was granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. I am of the opinion that the accused-non-petitioner Uchhab Kanwar being a lady and she was allowed bail pre-arrest bail more than one year ago, there is nothing on record that since her release on pre-arrest she has misused the same. Therefore, through I hold that the accused-non-petitioner should not have been released on pre-arrest bail, but for aforesaid reason I will not like to cancel her bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C.. and I allow bail to the accused-non-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and direct that she shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of s. 10,000/- with two sureties each in the amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for her appearance in that court or any other court in which she may be required to appear on all dates of hearing and as and when call upon to do so.Bail granted. *******