Order.- The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 and 5 and 6 in C.C. No. 1932 of 1967 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Tukmkur, which case is pending enquiry before the said Court. The accused filed an application for bail before the Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Mis. Case. No. 2 of 1967. Their request for bail in respect of A-1 to A-3, A-5 and A-6 Was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. While rejecting the request for bail, the learned Sessions Judge has observed as follows: "In the instant case, the learned Counsel for the petitioners wants to avail these provisions of section 497, Criminal Procedure Code. As I stated above, according to the learned Counsel, there is no prima facie case against A-2 and A-3 and more so against A-4 to A-6. Therefore, they are entitled to be released on bail. It should be noted that the case against the petitioners is still pending before the committal Court and the said Court has to decide if there is any prima facie case against the accused persons for committing them to the Sessions Court for taking their trial, after recording the statements of the eye-witnesses. That being the case, if I give any finding as to whether or not there are any reasonable grounds for believing that the accused have committed the offence, it would put the committing Magistrate in an embarrassing position as he also shall have to give his finding in the committal proceedings regarding the prima facie case against the accused persons. As such, I feel that it is in the interest of the parties and the justice, that I should refrain from giving any finding as to whether there is any prima facie evidence to hold that A-2 and A-3 had common intention with A-1 and that the A-4 to A-6 were not present there and their names have been inserted in the case diary on a later stage. Hence, I hold that on that ground, the application cannot be granted." From the above, it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the grounds urged on behalf of the accused for bail and the objections raised by the prosecution. In an application for bail, the learned Sessions Judge should make a serious effort to analyse the evidence which is available at the time when he deals with the matter. In an application for bail, the learned Sessions Judge should make a serious effort to analyse the evidence which is available at the time when he deals with the matter. I find no indication in the order as to whether the learned Sessions Judge made any attempt to deal with the case of each of the accused separately applying his mind to the evidence which was available at the material stage. It seems to me that the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge in dealing with the application for bail is not quite satisfactory. Though the application for bail has been filed on behalf of A-1 to A-3, A-5 and A-6, Sri Subbiah, learned Advocate for the petitioners did not seriously urge the release of petitioners 1 to 3. But, he urged very seriously on behalf of A-5 and A-6 that they deserve to be released on bail as there does not appear any reasonable ground for holding that they had been guilty of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life. Or an application for bail it is not the certainty or the improbability of a capital sentence or imprisonment for life being imposed, which is to be seen but simply whether, the offence is one for which such a sentence may be awarded. In considering an application for bail a Court is not required to conduct a preliminary trial of the case and consider the probability of the accused being found guilty or innocent. The Courts while deciding such applications, will be traversing beyond their proper ambit and would be exceeding the limits of their function if they engage themselves in discovering the guilt or innocence of the accused-applicant, which can only be determined at the trial stage-See Rao Harnarain Singh Sheoji Singh and others v. The State1. Sri Subbiah, learned Advocate for the petitioners urged that A-4 to A-6 Were not implicated in the information laid before the police by Chikkamma. He further urged that in the inquest report also the names of A-4 to A-6 have hot been mentioned as the culprits. He seriously urged that the Investigating Officer inserted the names of A-4 to A-6, after closing the statement of each eyewitness, between lines erasing certain portions and scribbling the accusation against A-4 to A-6. He further urged that in the inquest report also the names of A-4 to A-6 have hot been mentioned as the culprits. He seriously urged that the Investigating Officer inserted the names of A-4 to A-6, after closing the statement of each eyewitness, between lines erasing certain portions and scribbling the accusation against A-4 to A-6. In a way, it is admitted by the Prosecutor, who appeared before the Sessions Judge, in his written objections to the bail petition that the Investigating Officer was a new police officer and that he introduced the writing when the eyewitnesses later on mentioned their names. The case diary was sent for and a perusal of the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer bears out the submission made by Sri Subbiah, Whether the insertions made are bona fide and whether Chikkamma genuinely forgot to mention the names of A-4 to A-6 as the instigators at the early stage of her statement or whether it was an after-thought, are all matters for consideration by the committal Magistrate at the time of finding out whether there are grounds for committing the accused for trial by the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter while 1 ejecting the bail application filed on behalf of A-5 and A-6. As stated earlier, the reason given by the learned Sessions Judge is that it would put the committing Magistrate in an embarrassing position if he should give a finding as to whether or not there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused have committed the offence alleged against them. The learned Sessions Judge is not right in disposing of the matter in such a manner. After considering the grounds for bail, the Sessions Judge would have been well within his limits to give a warning to the committal Magistrate not to draw inferences from the observations made by him in the course of the order. On a careful consideration of the statements of the witnesses before the police and the way in which A-5 and A-6 are implicated in this crime, I am of opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the A-5 and A-6 are guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life at this stage. Therefore, A-5 and A-6 are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Therefore, A-5 and A-6 are entitled to be enlarged on bail. The same cannot be said in respect of A-1 to A-3 and therefore their application for bail is liable to be rejected. A-5 and A-6 shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a surety each in a sum of Rs. 3,000 (Rupees three thousand) and a self-bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of the committal Court pending disposal of the committal proceedings. However, I may warn the committal Magistrate not to draw any inference from the observations made by me in the course of the bail order. The bail application is partly allowed and partly dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Application party allowed.