JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. where a case has been registered for offence under Ss. 341, 323 & 34 IPC. After investigation of the case S. 308 IPC was also added. 2. The incident took place on 5.2.92 at 7.00 when the complainant party is alleged to have been beaten by the accused persons. Multiple injuries were sustained by Mahendra Singh who also had one injury on his head inflicted by sharp edged weapon. Application for anticipatory bail was moved by the petitioners before learned Sessions Judge, Alwar who rejected the same by his order dated 17-4-1992. It is pertinent to mention here that one accused Gurucharan Singh against whom there had been allegations of inflicting injuries on Mahendra Singh by blunt object, was arrested and he moved an application on 3.4.92 before the learned Magistrate No. 3, Alwar. 3. In this application for anticipatory bail the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the prosecution has come out with a case under S. 308 IPC and not one under S. 807 IPC. The injuries, it is alleged, sustained by the injured Mahendra Singh are all simple in nature and only in order to give gravity and making the offence triable by the court of Sessions S. 308 IPC has been added. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely entangled in the case because of the previous enmity between the parties and even otherwise if all the applications are taken together and the offence alleged, it is only in case under S. 308 IPC that the accused should be released on bail because maximum punishment permissible under S. 308 IPC is 7 years, when an injury is sustained else it is only 3 years. Thus the offence is punishments with the same sentence with which an offence under S. 325 IPC. 4. I have given my due consideration to the arguments advanced and have also perused the case diary. Blunt object has been attributed to Pappu, petitioner No. 2, and admittedly though the injury is grievous injury. Thus in the circumstances of the case a blunt object has been used, I deem it proper to give direction for released of the petitioner Pappu on anticipatory bail. 5. Blunt object has been attributed to Pappu, petitioner No. 2, and admittedly though the injury is grievous injury. Thus in the circumstances of the case a blunt object has been used, I deem it proper to give direction for released of the petitioner Pappu on anticipatory bail. 5. The SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, police station Ramgarh, in FIR No. 31/92 is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Pappu son of Chetsingh he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction, on the following conditions:- 1. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that he shall not directly or indirectly, 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 any police officers. 3. that he shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. 6. So far as the petitioner Apar Singh is concerned, he was armed with a sharp edged weapon which he has aimed on the head. It is true that offence is only under S. 308 IPC and not under S. 307 IPC, yet I am not inclined to issue directions for grant of anticipatory bail to him. He should appear before the concerned Magistrate and move an application under S. 437 Cr.P.C. It is contended that the learned Magistrate mechanically refused the application without going into the merits of the case and that seriously prejudices the case of the accused persons. He has shown to me the order passed by the learned Magistrate refusing the bail to Gurucharan Singh when he moved an application under S. 437 Cr.P.C. 7. I have perused the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 9.4.92. In view of the fact that Gurucharan Singh has already been released on bail by the court of Sessions, I do not have anything to look into the merits of the case, but suffice it to say that the reasoning given for refusal of the application under S. 437 Cr.P.C. is not one which is warranted by law. The learned Magistrate has rejected the bail on the ground that the offence is triable by court of Sessions. The learned Magistrate has rejected the bail on the ground that the offence is triable by court of Sessions. That alone cannot be a circumstance for refusal of the bail. The learned Magistrate must remember that S. 437 Cr.P.C. empowers them to release an accused on bail who is accused or suspected of commission of any non-bailable offence and who is arrested without warrant by an officer Incharge of the police station or appears or is brought before the court. There are only two riders given in sub-clause (I) & (II) of sub-S. (1) of S. 437 Cr.P.C. The one riders is that in case there are reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty for an offence punishable with death of imprisonment for life and secondly when the person is a previous convict, that too of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more or that he had been convicted on two or more occasions of non-bailable and cognizable offences. Thus, only on the aforesaid two grounds the bail can be refused if there is otherwise a case on merits. Thus, this ground alone should not be taken note of by the learned Magistrate and he should examine the case on merits. I may incidently add here that even regarding the two riders as mentioned above the legislature has brought out two exceptions, one is in case of women, another in case of sick person or an infirm person or the age of the accused is under 16 years. Therefore, the learned Magistrate shall examine the case of the petitioner Apar Singh if he surrenders and moves an application on its own merits and should not mechanically reject on the ground that the offence is triably by the court of Sessions. In this view of the matter the application of Apar Singh petitioner is dismissed at this stage. *******