Bhagaban Bhoi Alias Behera Vs. State

- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. .....that other five accused persons are on bail and there being no overt act attributed to the petitioner, he should also be released on bail. 2. i called for the records of the other bail applications. it is true that one of the accused persons has been released on bail as there was no overt act attributed to him. since this cannot be said to be a principle, said decision if not binding on me. bail is personal to an accused. allegation of commission of offence in this case is heinous in nature. accordingly, in case those petitions would have been heard by me possibly, i might not have granted bail. nature of commission of offence as alleged is to be taken note of while considering an application for bail for a non-bailable offence where normally accused is not entitled to bail unless special case is made out in respect of an accused. a person may not have committed an overt act. he may, however, be the ring leader with whom others joined with common intention or common object. in case, such persons are released on bail object of the legislation in making the offence non-bailable becomes frustrated. wider power of this court to grant bail should be exercised with great restraint. 3. in this case now the trial is in progress. this aspect has not been taken note of while granting bail to other accused persons. in case learned sessions judge would have granted bail, i would have called upon those accused persons to explain why the bail granted to them would not be cancelled. since this court has granted bail, i cannot exercise this power. 4. it is stated that petitioner is in custody for about nine months. long detention in a heinous crime is no ground for release of an accused on bail. 5. my observations while refusing bail to petitioner should not weigh with learned trial judge to assess the evidence properly to find out whether petitioner has committed any offence. 6. in result, application for bail is rejected.