JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for ordering release of the petitioner on bail. 2. Allegation against the petitioner is that on 6.9.93 the Station House officer Badi had gone near Bijoli-Ka-Tal on an information received from an accomplice. At about 4 p.m. one person had started running towards village when he saw the Police Jeep and Police personnel in their dresses. This man was caught by the police and he disclosed his name to be Rajvir son of Gajadhar, by caste Kushwah, resident of Ram Nagar, Police Station Sadar, Dholpur (Raj.). On a search by a Constable Gangadan, a Pachphera and belt of 17 cartridges was recovered. He was asked to show the licence but he failed to produce the licence. Rajvir further stated that cartridges had been given to him by Jaggo Jagdish son of Murli Kachhi, resident of Kawanpura, Police Station Sarmathura for being sold. In the First Information Report it has also been recorded that about 7 months back a truck was looted under Kumheri Ki Piao and the cartridges are the same which were looted. A case under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and Section 412 IPC was registered. 3. Application filed by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court Dacoity, Dholpur was dismissed on 15.9.93. 4. Argument of Shri Shrimal, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner is that the petitioner is in no way connected with the offence of dacoity and the recovery from him has been concocted by the Police. Shri Shrimal argued that arms recovered from the petitioner were not subject matter of theft or dacoity nor were they transferred by any dacoit. He further pleaded that the accused-petitioner is a young boy and there is no past case against him. Shri Shrimall further submitted that there is no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with an offence under Section 412 IPC or under Section 3 /25 of the Arms Act. On the basis of these submissions Shri Shrimall prayed that the petitioner be ordered to be released on bail because, he has already remained in custody for more than two months. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner is directly involved in offence under Section 412 and a period of six months has not elapsed since the date of registration of the case. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner is directly involved in offence under Section 412 and a period of six months has not elapsed since the date of registration of the case. He is, therefore, not entitled to bail in view of the provisions contained in Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1986. Shri Agrawal placed reliance on Section 5 of 1986 Act and argued that before expiry of a period of 180 days the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail. 6. Section 2(c) of 1986 Act defines expression "scheduled offence". Section 5 of the Act makes provision for grant of bail. These two provisions are quoted below. "Sec. 2 (c)-"scheduled offence" in relation to a dacoity-affected area, means an offence specified in the schedule appended to this Act including an offence forming part of, arising out of, or connected with the commission of dacoity. Sec. 5 - Regulation of grant of bail-Not with standing anything contained in the Code, no person accused or convicted of a scheduled offence shall, if in a custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless (a) the prosecution has been given opportunity to oppose the application for bail; and (b) where the prosecution opposes the application for bail, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence: Provided that a person accused of a scheduled offence, who has been in custody for a total period of one hundred and eighty days, may be released on bail subject to such conditions as the Court may think fit to impose." 7. In the Schedule appended to the Act Section 412 does not find mention in Clause (1). offence under Section 412 cannot be considered as one falling under Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Clause(7) relates to act of receiving benefits from persons committing of or any of the offences mentioned in Clauses (1) to (6) of the Schedule. 8. The provisions of Section-5 read with Schedule carves out an exception to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and puts a fetter on the power of the Court to grant bail to a person because of a particular offence allegedly committed by such person. It is a settled canon of interpretation that a provision of law which affects the life and liberty of an individual must be strictly interpreted. It is a settled canon of interpretation that a provision of law which affects the life and liberty of an individual must be strictly interpreted. It is also a well settled that the provisions contained in the penal statute must ordinarily receive strict and narrow construction because they affect life and liberty of individuals. This approach has to be kept in mind while construing Section 5 and the Schedule. If these provisions are so interpreted, it is clear that unless an offence strictly falls within the parameters of a "scheduled offence", Section 5 cannot be pressed into service for denying bail before 180 days. 9. A recapitulation of the facts which can he carved out from the First Information Report and the order passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur are that the accused petitioner has been charged with an offence under Section 412. The only allegation levelled against him is that a belt with 17 cartridges has been recovered from the accused. It has not been alleged that he has been acting on behalf of those committing dacoity or that he has been benefited by the commission of offence specified in the Schedule. It is thus, clear that the provisions of Section 5 cannot be attracted so as to deny bail to the petitioner. 10. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be given the benefit of Section 439 Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner Rajvir son of Gajadhar shall he released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Dacoity-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur for his appearance before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing and whenever he is called upon to do so.Application allowed. *******