Order.- These two applications for bail are by the two sets of accused who are being prosecuted for offence under section 5 (2) of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923-hereinafter referred to as the Act-read with section 6 of the Defence of India Act, 1962. The case for the prosecution has been dealt with, in detail, by the, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, and need not be repeated. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that on the facts stated in the F.I.R. no offence under section 5 (2) of the Act is made out and on that ground alone the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. I cannot agree that no prima facie case, is made out. If any person receives any secret official note, document or information either knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the said note, document or information is passed on by one in contravention of the provisions of the Act the person who receives would be guilty of the offence. The publication of the photostat copy of the confidential letter in the papers is not denied by the petitioners. So the charge under section 5 (2) will lie, but I refrain from saying anything more as it is a matter which has to be finally decided at the time of the trial. The question that arises here is whether this is a case in which the petitioners could be enlarged on bail. An offence under section 5 (2) was or finally one punishable with imprisonment for a term of 2 years or with fine or with both and was bailable. By section 6 of the Defence of India Act during the period of emergency the punishment prescribed under section 5 (4) has been enhanced to 5 years and fine and the offence has been made non-bailacle. The section of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the High Court, is empowered to act in the matter of grant of bail is section 498, the material portion of which reads as follows: “The High Court or Court of Session may in any case)....................direct that any person be admitted to bail.” It is manifest that the discretion given to this Court is thus unrestricted in any way by the terms of the statute. The discretion should, no doubt, be exercised judiciously. The discretion should, no doubt, be exercised judiciously. This Court has powers if it does grant bail, to grant it on such conditions as the circumstances of the case and the public interest may require. There cannot be any hard and fast rale as to the cases where bail may be granted and where it may be refused. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As to the object of keeping an accused person in detention during the trial it cannot be doubted that the object is not punitive. An accused person should have reasonable freedom and opportunity to defend his case and it is not unreasonable to think that he Could look after his case properly and defend himself only if he is on bail. At the same time the Court will have to take into account other considerations, namely, the nature and seriousness of the accusation, the severity of the punishment which the conviction may entail, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with and also the larger interests of the State. Learned Advocate-General appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and argued that the accused are very influential people who would hamper the proper investigation and conduct of the case. It is true that nobody should be allowed to impede the course of justice or hamper its administration in any manner, but as far as the fear of hampering the investigation is concerned, there is nothing but a vague and general allegation, which to my mind, is not a sound reason for refusing bail in this case. I do not believe that the petitioners are so influential or that they occupy such a dominating position as to,be able to intimidate or tamper with the witnesses who may have to give evidence in the case. Learned Advocate-General also brought to my notice that after the first publication of the photostat copy of the confidential letter in the issue of ‘Janayugam’ dated 29th July, they have again published comments and a Malayalam translation in their issue of 31st July, and there is real apprehension that the petitioners would again make similar publications. Learned Advocate-General also brought to my notice that after the first publication of the photostat copy of the confidential letter in the issue of ‘Janayugam’ dated 29th July, they have again published comments and a Malayalam translation in their issue of 31st July, and there is real apprehension that the petitioners would again make similar publications. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are prepared to give an undertaking that they would not publish anything further about this matter till the disposal of the case. This, I suppose, should be sufficient to allay the apprehension about the repetition of the offence. The granting of bail in a non-cognizable case is a concession allowed to the accused and it pre-supposes that the privilege is not to be abused. If therefore, the liberty is abused the Advocate-General can always move on sufficient materials, for the cancellation of the bail. Therefore, this is also not a good ground for refusing bail. Reference was made to the recent case State v. Captain Jagit Singh1, where the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused who was charged for the commission of the offence under the Indian Official Secrets Act. The facts of that case would show that the accused who was a Captain in the Indian Army was prosecuted for criminal conspiracy under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, and under section 3 of the Act for having passed on very valuable official secrets to a foreign agency. It is needless to say that such an offence is of a very serious kind affecting the safety and the interests of our country. Such is not the case here. I do not for a moment minimise the gravity of the offence charged here but this by itself cannot be a reason for refusal of bail. Learned Sessions Judge, has mainly refused bail because of the gravity of the offence which can be one of the considerations, but is not the sole criterion in the matter of grant of bail. There is no allegation that the petitioners will abscond and will not be available for the trial. So on a careful and anxious consideration of all the circumstances, I feel that this is not a case for refusing bail to the petitioners. There is no allegation that the petitioners will abscond and will not be available for the trial. So on a careful and anxious consideration of all the circumstances, I feel that this is not a case for refusing bail to the petitioners. In the result, I order that the petitioners be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000 with two solvent sureties in a like amount to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Trivandrum. Before the petitioners are released on bail they mast each of them give an undertaking in writing before the District Magistrate that they would not publish anything about this matter in their paper till this case is finally disposed of. The petitions are allowed. M.C.M. ----- Petitions allowed.