JUDGMENT 1. - These are eight applications for grant of bail on behalf of four women Smt. Lalita, Sint. Nanchi, Smt. Jamna and Smt. Nanudi against whom two cases under Section 302 IPC are pending in the Court of Sessions Judge at Jhunjhunu. 2. Brief resume' of the criminal cases registered against the petitioners is that on the basis of Parcha Byan of one Radhey Shyam injured an FIR No. 248/99 came to be instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 232, 447, 307 and 302 IPC. at Police Station Bagad, Distt. Jhunjhunu is connection with the murder of Kamal Kumar and Om Prakash. In order to arrest the accused in the said case Deputy Superintendent of Police Bagad along with Station House Officer Sheopal Singh proceeded to village Rekha Ki Dhani. Some of the accused persons were arrested by the Dy. S.F. and She-opal Singh SHO along with Police constables left back. There the petitioners and other accused surrounded Sheopal Singh, inflicted injuries on his person, his service revolver was snatched and he was done to death. An FIR No. 249/99 was registered at Police Station Bagad under Sections 302, 332, 353, 394, 147, 148 and 149 IPC. All the four petitioners have been named as accused in both the aforequoted cases. 3. Mr. Bajrang Lal Sharma, Senior Counsel vociferously canvassed that the petitioners have been implicated falsely. There is not even an iota of evidence to connect them with the crime. The alleged incident had been occurred in the darkness as is evident from the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The petitioners being women are entitled to be released on bail in view of the provisions contained in proviso appended to Section 437(1) Cr. P.C. It was also canvassed that the conduct of the SHO Sheopal Singh was not befitting to a Police Officer. Reliance was placed on Dr. Manjula Sharma v. State, 1993 RCC 4 ; Mst. Sunder v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cr LR (Raj) 92 ; Smt. Rameshwari Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 Cr LR (Raj) 641 ; Mt. Choki v. State, AIR 1957 Raj 10 and Smt. Chandra Kala v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 RCC 426 .' 4. On the other hand; Mr. ragcleep Dhankar, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant as well as Mr. S.S. Rathore. Choki v. State, AIR 1957 Raj 10 and Smt. Chandra Kala v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 RCC 426 .' 4. On the other hand; Mr. ragcleep Dhankar, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant as well as Mr. S.S. Rathore. learned Public Prosecutor, contended that from the material on record the crime against the petitioners is prima facie established. The petitioners took part in the serious offence of causing murder of three persons including SHO Sheopal Singh, who went to the house of the petitioners to arrest them and other accused persons. The dead-body of Sheopal Singh was found in the house of the petitioners lying in the pool of blood, therefore the petitioners do not deserve to he released on bail. 5. I have reflected over the rival submission and carefully scanned the material on record. The usual procedure of refusing bail may he departed from on grounds enumerated in the first proviso appended to Section 437(1) Cr. P.C. which however is discretionary. In exercising the discretion the Court should not automatically act by granting bail on finding that any of the grounds mentioned in it exists but must further take into account other relevant consideration alongwith it. The provision of bail to a woman, sick and old aged person is not mandatory. When there is a positive evidence of witnesses against accused to connect them with gruesome murders, merely because the accused are ladies they are not entitled to benefit of proviso to Section 437(1) Cr. P.C. 6. It is well settled that while considering application for bail, a balance has to be struck between maintenance of social order and liberty of a person. The Court has to take into consideration the entire material placed before it. Granting of bail is a matter of judicial discretion vested in the Court. 7. P.C. 6. It is well settled that while considering application for bail, a balance has to be struck between maintenance of social order and liberty of a person. The Court has to take into consideration the entire material placed before it. Granting of bail is a matter of judicial discretion vested in the Court. 7. In Babu Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 527 : 1979 (16) ACC 7 (Sum) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Article 21 that the crucial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the Court for the individual and the community......So deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or enduring, must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objectives of society, specified in the Constitution. Deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for bi-focal interests of justice to the individual involved and society affected. 8. In Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, 1987 (24) ACC 425 (SC) . Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus- (Para 6) "....Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution." 9. In State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintanman Dighe, 1990 (27) ACC 131 (SC) their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with an order of Designated court granting bail to accused Anand Chintaman Digha, an accused in Shiv Sena Corporator murder case observed - that the learned Judge grossly erred in foreclosing the trial by prejudging the evidence which was yet to come on record. In para 9 of the judgment their Lordships observed thus: ". . . .we do not appreciate the manner in which the learned Judge has dealt with the matter. The police investigation prima facie shows that mafia-type terror and fear psychosis was created which led to the cold-blooded murder of Shridhar Khopkar. In para 9 of the judgment their Lordships observed thus: ". . . .we do not appreciate the manner in which the learned Judge has dealt with the matter. The police investigation prima facie shows that mafia-type terror and fear psychosis was created which led to the cold-blooded murder of Shridhar Khopkar. The learned Judge acted illegally in appreciating the statements of witnesses and material collected by the investigating officer at the investigation stage. He should have permitted the evidence to be recorded and thereafter dealt with the same in accordance with law." 10. The evidence which is yet to come on record cannot be prejudged by me at this stage in view of the ratio indicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anand Chintaman Dighe's case (supra). 11. I have carefully scrutinised the case diaries and the charge-sheets filed against the petitioners. I cannot appreciate the Conduct of the deceased SHO Sheopal Singh at this stage. It will be too early to make comments on the material collected by the investigating agency. On the record it is prima fade established that the petitioners took part in gruesome murder of three persons including murder of SHO Sheopal Singh, who was on duty and his body was found in the pool of blood in the house of the petitioners. In these circumstances the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of proviso to Section 437(1) Cr. P.C. 12. All these eight bail applications accordingly stand rejected. *******