Dayal, J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Dhian Pal Singh under Section 498 and 561 -A, Cr. P.C. He and others are prosecuted for offences under Sections 148, 3 7 and 452, I.P.C. They Were granted bail by the Sessions Judge on two conditions ; firstly, that they will remain at Aligarh during the pendency of the case and will not visit their village Sikandrapur and, secondly, that they will have their attendance noted at Aligarh Kotwali daily. The applicant went to village Jadaula on the 13th July, 1951. The complainant alleged that he had gone to his village Sikandrapur and, therefore, moved the Sessions Judge for the cancellation of the bail granted to him and four other persons The learned Sessions Judge cancelled the applicant's bail as it was he who was alleged to have gone to village Sikandrapur and had been arrested, and refused to cancel the bail of the others. It is prayed that the Sessions Judge's order canceling the bail be quashed and the applicant be released on bail.
(2.) I am not to decide in this application whether the conditions imposed were justified or not. I may simply state that the conditions were imposed with the consent of the accused. I am not also to decide whether the accused did commit a breach of the condition or not. The main point urged before me is that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to cancel the order granting bail to the applicant, as bail granted by a Sessions Judge under Section 498. Cr. P. C. can be cancelled by the High Court only in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction I agree with this contention and have held so in several cases recently. It may be that if an accused acts against the conditions imposed; his bail would be liable to be cancelled, but that liability alone will not vest the Sessions Judge with jurisdiction to cancel the bail. It may be that due to the contravention of a condition subject to which bail is granted, the bonds executed by the accused and the sureties may be liable to be forfeited or they may be liable to be dealt with for committing contempt of court, but such liability would not affect the validity of the bail order passed in their favour In this connection I may refer to Section 514 -A, which provides for several contingencies, including one when any bond is forfeited under the provisions of Sections 5l4, and says that the court by whose order such bond was taken may order the person from whom such security was demanded to furnish fresh security in accordance with the directions of the original order and, if such security is not furnished, such court or Magistrate may proceed as if there had been a default in complying with such original order. This means that on the forfeiture of the security the order granting bail does not come to an end If that order does not come to an end. there cannot be an order for the re -arrest of the accused. It is when the accused fails to provide the fresh security that he fails to comply with the initial order and can, therefore, be taken in custody. It follows therefore, that what the learned Sessions Judge should have done in the present case would have been first to order that the bonds have become to felt for certain reasons and then to have called upon the accused applicant to furnish security and if the accused had failed to furnish the security, to order his being taken in custody.
(3.) I am therefore, of opinion that the order of the Sessions Judge canceling the order granting bail to the accused is without jurisdiction and should be set aside. I accordingly allow the application, set aside the order canceling the bail of the applicant and order that be released from custody in compliance with the order granting bail previously parsed. On course, I make it clear that it would be open to the learned Sessions Judge to take any other action contemplated by law, if necessary in the circumstances of the case.;