Petitioners four in number along with an absconding accused are facing trial before Sessions Judge, Pulwama in Sessions case 131/M (FIR No. 126/03 registered at Police Station Pulwama). Incriminating allegations against accused are that on Litter-Pulwama main road at Wachi,they Waylaid and robbed two persons Bilal Ganai and Abdullah Ganai, challani witness to the occurrence, of an amount of Rs. 1,00,034/-, when the two were riding/driving a scooter after administering threats and using fake rifle on wrongfully restraining them. Police recovered the amount of Rs. 60,000/- from four accused, though the fifth accused Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh is absconding and proceedings under section 512 Cr.P.C are initiated against him .The Police, on conclusion of the investigations has send the accused to face trial. On committal the Sessions Judge has taken cognizance of the matter and the accused are being tried in the court and the case is at prosecution evidence stage. 2. Accused moved an application for bail before the Sessions Judge Pulwama,which has been rejected by the Sessions Judge by order dated 10.9.2003. The revision is against this order. 3. The Ld. counsel for petitioners submits that the Ld. Sessions Judge Pulwama has made certain observations in the impugned order which affect the case on merits and despite opportunities prosecution has failed to lead evidence. No evidence is recorded in the case and so long the accused are not shown guilty, they are deemed to be innocent .The appearing accused cannot be denied bail, because one of the accused is absconding. Preventive detention order was clamped on the accused under J&K Public Safety Act 1978. However, their orders of detention have been subsequently revoked by the Government, thereby, the accuseds case for bail is strengthened. Besides, Section 497(3)(a) Cr.P.C provides that if trial of a person for non bail-able offence is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the date fixed for taking evidence in the case in first instance, such accused has to be given bail unless for reasons to be recorded, court directs otherwise. 4. Mr. J.I.Ganai, GA, has opposed the bail and has submitted that the bail applications moved earlier have been rejected by the court below and that the Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order within the confines of law and the order is not vitiated on any count. 4. Mr. J.I.Ganai, GA, has opposed the bail and has submitted that the bail applications moved earlier have been rejected by the court below and that the Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order within the confines of law and the order is not vitiated on any count. The impugned order rejecting bail is legal, correctly passed to discourage the accused to perpetrate the crime at societys peril. 5. It is seen from record that the accused had earlier filed an application for bail which has been rejected by the Sessions Court Pulwama. Accused/petitioners filed another application on the alleged ground that there is change in the situation brought about by the fact that no witness has been examined despite three month period having lapsed and that section 497(3)(a) Cr.P.C provided that if evidence is not led within sixty days after the case is initially slated for recording evidence, accused is to be given bail. However, a bare look on Section 497(3)(a) Cr.P.C would reveal that this provision does not apply to petitioners case for facing trial before the Sessions Judge. Section 497(3)(a)Cr.P.C applies to a case tried by magistrate. Even so, the court is not under a legal mandate only to release the under trial on bail in the above situation referred to in the provision of law, but clause 3(a) of S.497 Cr.P.C itself lays down that bail can be refused for reasons to be recorded in writing. The court sought report from the Dist.& Sessions Judge Pulwama and also copies of statement of challani witnesses, if any recorded. The Sessions Judge has submitted a detailed report. Perusal of the explanation-cum-report shows that the case has been adjourned from time to time for one or the other reason. In terms of the reasons given whole blame for non-examination of witnesses cannot be laid at the door steps of the court. The accused also have to share part of the blame for protraction of the trial along with the slackness of the prosecution to produce the other witnesses. Even so, out of six eye witnesses to the occurrence, depositions of two eye witnesses have been recorded. The attested copies of statements of two witnesses are with the report. The accused also have to share part of the blame for protraction of the trial along with the slackness of the prosecution to produce the other witnesses. Even so, out of six eye witnesses to the occurrence, depositions of two eye witnesses have been recorded. The attested copies of statements of two witnesses are with the report. The two eye-witness Bilal Ganai and Abdulla Ganai, the scooter driver and pillion seator waylid and robbed of the money, have graphically and in detail unhesitatingly and unreservedly deposed before the court and named accused as perpetrators of crime/offence in question. It would suffice at this stage to say that incriminating statements of both the witnesses in unequivocal terms plainly implicate all the five accused in the incident and have supported the prosecution case of wrongful restrain and robbery. The Government Advocate submits that after the statements of the two witnesses were recorded in December, 2003 and March 2004, statements of further two witnesses have been also recorded in April,2004 and those two witnesses have also supported prosecution case and their testimony is in accord with the testimony tendered by the above two witnesses corroborating the prosecution case. The question of scanning, appreciation and weight of evidence on the allegations with which accused are charged is a matter for trial court at appropriate stage of proceedings. However, for purpose of these proceedings, it would suffice to note that after the applications for bail were rejected, there has been no change in the situation and in fact the further development as above incriminates the accused and weakens their case for bail. After all bail for a non bail-able offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life is not a matter of right. In such a case, the discretion, to be exercised by the Sessions Judge, has to be informed of the reasons and if reasonable grounds do exist for believing that the accused have been guilty of such an offence, the court is under a legal obligation and duty to reject the bail. Of course, exceptions being provided by Section 497 Cr.P.C. However, none of the exceptions applies to this case. Of course, exceptions being provided by Section 497 Cr.P.C. However, none of the exceptions applies to this case. Only because accused or some one amongst accused was detained after the occurrence under the J&K Public Safety Act,1978, which order had been subsequently rescinded, is no ground for the accused to claim bail in the regular criminal case pending before Sessions Judge rooted to the occurrence in question (FIR 126 /03 of Police Station Pulwama). The exercise of powers and discretion under the Public Safety Act is within the realm of public order, security of the State or prevention of smuggling activities, whereas trial of an accused under RPC falls beyond para meters of preventive detention and is squarely covered by public order sphere. The exercise of powers and judicial discretion to refuse bail to accused/ petitioners by Ld. Sessions Judge Pulwama, apart from some avoidable uncalled for observations and remarks made in the bail order touching the merits and severely indicating the accused, is for reason recorded. After taking a view of over all facts and circumstances of the case and on consideration of the matter, Sessions Judge Pulwama has come to the conclusion that the reasonable grounds do exist for believing that the accused have been guilty of offences under section 341 and 395 RPC when the latter offence as alternate punishment provides for life imprisonment with fine. 6. Having heard the counsel and examined the record of the proceedings before Sessions Judge Pulwama the impugned order and the proceedings before the Sessions Judge are not shown improper or infracting any provision of law. The order is passed and discretion exercised on legal and on factual grounds, fairly sustainable on record as covered by law. 7. In result, there is no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed. While the revision petition is dismissed, it cannot be lost sight of that the observations made by the Sessions Judge Pulwama on merits of the case indicting the accused, in bail application, when the whole evidence is yet to be recorded and the trial is yet to be concluded is not and cannot be a reflection on the merits of the case as may be made out at the close of the trial. The remarks and the observations made by the court below are only confined to disposal of the bail application. The remarks and the observations made by the court below are only confined to disposal of the bail application. For inviting orders, if any needed, on question of seeking, granting or refusing of bail (once evidence is received and brought on record) within the conspectus of law laid down by Section 497 Cr.P.C, the accused are free to move a motion for bail and the Sessions Judge would pass appropriate orders on merits of such laid motion qua reasonableness of the grounds for believing that the accused is guilty/ non-guilty of an offence punishable with life or death. 8. Certify this order to Sessions Judge Pulwama. Send back record. Disposed of.