H.R. Khanna, J.
1. This is an application by Rulia and Rosnan of village Dhulkot, Tehsil and District Ambala, who nave been arrested under Rules 6 and 11 of the Defence of India Rules, read with Section 3 of the Indian judicial Secrets Act.
2-3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on the night between 19th and 20th November, 1962, at about 11-30 p.m., they were seen within the barbed wire enclosure of Ambala Cantonment aerodrome. They were challenged by Mohan Lal watchman but they threw brickbats in order to make good their escape. They were identi-fled in the torchlight by the watchman because the .petitioners lived in village Dhulkot in the area of which we aerodrome is situated. They were arrested on 2lst November, 1962, but were released on bail on 3rd December, 1962. Subsequently on an application filed by the prosecution, their bail was cancelled on 14th December, 1962. Since then they are in custody. Their bail application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala.
4. I have heard Mr. Lakhanpal on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Jagga on behalf of the state, Mr. Lakhanpal contends that even If the petitioners trespassed into the area of the aerodrome, they did so with no ulterior motive but because they happened to live in that locality. Mr. Jagga also concedes that nothing has been found in the antecedents of the petitioners which may go to snow that they were found in the area of the aerodrome with a motive calculated to prejudice the defence of the country.
It is, however, urged by Mr. Jagga that Because as the provisions of R. 155 of the Defence of India Rules the petitioners can be released on bail only if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they were not guilty of any contravention of the rules. Rule 155 reads as under:
155. Special provision regarding bail. Not with standing anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898) no person accused or convicted of a contravention of these rules or orders-made thereunder shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless--
(a) the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application far such release, and
(b) where the prosecution opposes the application and the contravention is of any such provision of these rules or Orders made thereunder as the Central Government or the State Government may by notified order specify in this behalf, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such contravention.
Mr. Jagga relies on Clause (b) of the rule and contends that it is for the petitioners to show at the hearing of the bail application- that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are not guilty of any contravention of the rules. In my opinion, this contention is not well-founded. Rule 155 has two clauses. So far as Clause (a) is concerned, it provides that before a person who is-being proceeded against for contravention of Defence of India Rules or orders thereunder is released on bail, an opportunity should be given to the prosecution to oppose the application for such release. This clause would apply to all cases for the contravention of any rule or order made under the Defence of India Rules. Clause (b), now-ever, makes it clear that it applies to the contravention of only these rules or orders as the Central Government or the State Government may by notified order specify in this behalf. Before the provisions of Clause (b) can be invoked, it has to be shown that the rules or orders, for the contravention of which the petitioners are being proceeded against, have been specified by the Central Government or the State Government. It is not the contravention of every rule or order made under the defence of India Act which would be covered by Clause (b), but the contravention of only those rules or orders as are specified in this behalf. There is nothing to show that Rules b and 11 of the Defence of India Rules, for the contravention of which the petitioners have been arrested and are being proceeded against, have been, notified under Clause (D) of Rule 155. In the circumstances, I am of the view that Clause (b) of Rule 156 does not stand in the way of the petitioners being released on ball.
5. Looking to all the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it Is a fit case in which, the petitioners should be released on bail. I accordingly direct that they be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 2000/- with one surety each to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate.