Heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Mohammad, learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioners have tied this application under section 439 read with section 482 CrPC against the order dated 15.9.94 passed by the Additional Scions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 41/94 under section 302/ 3,22/324/427/34I?C pending before the said Court. The petitioners are accused in the said Sessions case. 3. Petitioners were kept in custody for the statutory period of 90 days and thereafter they were released as the investigation could not be completed during that statutory period The petitioners remained on previous bail after their committal to Sessions by order dated 15.7.94 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge after transfer of the case to that Court. On 15.9.94 learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under the above mentioned sections of IPC and while the order of framing of charges was passed, the learned Judge directed re-arrest of the petitioners for commitment to custody and since 15.9.94 the petitioners have been in custody. By the impugned order dated 15.9.94 the learned Court below held that by order dated 4.3.93 in CRCase No. 2843/92 the accused were released on bail after their detention in prison for 90 days; that the Magistrate passed the bail order under section 167 CrPC during investigation and before charge sheet was received against the accused; that the bail order was passed under legislative mandate and not on merits and that after the said order was passed by the Magistrate charge sheet was received and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The reason for rearrest of the petitioners, as given in the impugned order, is that the accused persons caused death of the deceased. That the post mortem report shows that the deceased received six injuries and doctor's report also corroborated it; that the deceased died immediately after the occurrence. It was1 further held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that there appeared reasonable grounds for believing that the accused are guilty of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or death. 4. The power of the High Court or Sessions Court as given by section 439 CrPC, definitely, not controlled by statutory limitation laid down in section 437 CrPC for refusing bail, if there appears reasonable grounds for believing the accused to be guilty of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. 4. The power of the High Court or Sessions Court as given by section 439 CrPC, definitely, not controlled by statutory limitation laid down in section 437 CrPC for refusing bail, if there appears reasonable grounds for believing the accused to be guilty of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. There is no dispute that power under section 439 are not distinct defining the limits within which they would be exercised as the powers under section 437. The discretion is unfettered by section 437 and it must be exercised judiciously (AIR 1978 SC 1916, Miss Harsh Sawhney ys. Union Territory, Chandigarh Admn). This power has been reiterated in a catena of decisions (after Gurucharan Singh's case, AIR 1978 SC 179 ) that the Sessions Judge must have jurisdiction over the Magistrate whose orders he examined and the power given under the section can be exercised in respect of any order of a Magistrate under section 437 (1) or read with section 437 (3). But the power is not to be exercised as if punishment before the trial is imposed, the material consideration should be whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether there is likelihood of jumping ball or tampering evidence and if there is a prima facie case then bail can be rejected. 5. Ordinarily when Sessions Judge refuses bail the jurisdiction of the High Court has to be sparingly exercised to interfere with it and only in exceptional cases when, there is a glaring defect in the procedure and where there is gross miscarriage of justice which may lead to manifest error on, question of law. Definitely in such a case the High Court would interfere. As it appears from the impugned order there is no allegation from the prose­cution side against the petitioners to find out a prima facie case against them regarding jumping of bail condition. In that view of the matter I return the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar for reconside­ration of the bail prayer under section 439 CrPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge may consider fresh bail petition in the light of the observation and reassess this aspect of the case. 6. With the direction the petition is disposed of.