ORDER : Raghubir Dash, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner files a memo in Court today indicating therein that in the meantime the-case has been committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack and numbered as S.T. Case No. 58 of 2015, which be kept on record. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State on the petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner, who is an accused in S.T. Case No. 58 of 2015 arising out of Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No. 301 of 2014 is alleged to have committed offence under Section 498-A/494/302/201/34 of the I.P.C., pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack. 3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that inspite of the fact that all the incriminating circumstances available against the present petitioner make out his involvement under Section 201 of the I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petitioner's bail application even though the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C. is bailable Learned Counsel for the State fairly submits that the materials available in the case diary makes out a case under Section 201 of the I.P.C. and there is no iota of incriminating materials making out a case under Section 498-A/494/302 of the I.P.C. as against the present petitioner. 4. Perused the case diary as well as the order of rejection dated 18.11.2014 passed in BLAPL No. 1358/345 of 2014. There is no dispute that offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. though triable by Court of Sessions is a bailable offence and a person who is an accused having committed that offence is entitled to bail as of right. So, let the petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the learned lower Court may deem just and proper in the aforesaid case. 5. Before parting with it is considered necessary for making some observations on the manner in which the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack has dealt with the petitioner's bail application in his order dated 18.11.2014. The order of rejection reveals that though the learned 2nd Addl. 5. Before parting with it is considered necessary for making some observations on the manner in which the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack has dealt with the petitioner's bail application in his order dated 18.11.2014. The order of rejection reveals that though the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack took note of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire prosecution story, if believed to be true, at best makes out a case under Section 201 of the I.P.C, he did not record any finding on that submission. The order further reveals that the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge found from the record that the present petitioner had assisted to shift the dead body to the river bed in order to cause disappearance of the evidence. But merely observing that since the investigation is still in progress the exact role played by the petitioner could not be ascertained, be rejected the bail application. He did not make any positive observation that there was prima facie case under Sections 498-A/494/302/34 of I.P.C, as against the present petitioner. Since the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. is bailable in nature the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge ought to have made such observation before rejecting the bail application. The rejection of the bail application on the ground that the investigation is in progress and the exact role of the petitioner cannot be ascertained at the stage the bail application was under his consideration does not appear to be a sound proposition, particularly when the offence is bailable in nature. All these observations are made in order to instill confidence in the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to exercise his discretionary power fearlessly but in a judicious manner. 6. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 7. Copy of this order be communicated to the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack for his guidance. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Disposed off