B.S.YADAV, J. - (1.) THIS short question whether a Magistrate can cancel the bail of an accused who has been released on bail for bailable offence, has arisen in the following circumstances : - Present petitioner Jasminder Kaur was arrested for having committed an offence under Section 318 Indian Penal Code. As the said offence was bailable. she was released on bail. Later on the investigation agency filed an application for cancelling the bail of the accused on the ground that she was not allowing to get herself medically examined as permitted under Section 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. After the accused appeared in the Court the Learned Magistrate vide order dated 7th December 1982 refused to cancel her bail but allowed the investigating agency to take her medical examination, While the accused was being taken away by the Investigating Officer, she made good her escape. It is not necessary to dwell upon the circumstances alleged by the investigating agency, in which she ran away. Suffice it to say that on 8t December, 1982 the prosecution filed another application for cancellation of the bail of the accused on the ground that she was not co -operating with the Police for her medical examination. Notice of that examination was issued to the accused as well as to the surety. The Notices were received back unserved on the ground that the accused was concealing herself to avoid her medical examination. Vide order dated 11th December, 1982 the Learned Magistrate cancelled the bail of the accused and issued non -bailable warrant of arrest against her. Aggrieved against that order the accused has filed the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that notices had not been served upon the accused or her surety for 11th December, 1982, nor the said date was fixed for the appearance of the accused and therefore the learned Magistrate had no power to cancel her bail. I need not discuss the above point in detail because Janardan Yadav and another v. State of Bihar and another, 1978 Criminal Law Journal 1318, is a direct authority which supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, In that case it was remarked : - "Under the Code, the provisions were nearly similarly. In the case of Ratilal Bhanji v. Asst. Collector of Customs, AIR 1967 SC (639) : 1976 Crl. LJ (1576), it was observed that a person accused of a bailable offence is treated differently and when he is brought before a Court, he has a right to be released on bail. It was further stated therein that the Cr.P.C. 1898 made no express provision for the cancellation of a bail granted in such circumstances. Nevertheless, if at any subsequent stage of the proceedings it is found that any person accused of a bailable offence is intimidating, bringing or tempering with the prosecution witnesses or is attempting to abscond, the High Court has the power to cause him to be arrested and to commit him to custody for such period as it thinks from the overriding inherent powers of the High Court which could be invoked in exceptional cases only when the High Court was satisfied that the ends of justice will be defeated unless the accused is committed to custody. Under the Cr.P.C. 1973, however, CI. (2) of Section 439 which also is under chapter XXXIII of the Code relating to provisions as to bail and bonds provides that a High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. In other words, under the Code of 1973, now there is specific provisions whereby even in bailable offence, the High Court or the Court of Sessions has been given power to arrest and commit to custody a person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII, which includes in it Section 446, under, which persons are released on bail for bailable offences. Accordingly it must be held that the learned Magistrate had no power under the Code to cancel the bail bond of the petitioners inasmuch as they were on bail in bailable offence." In the present case is the learned Magistrate required the presence of the accused for her medical examination, notice ought to have been served upon her. In case it became necessary to cancel her bail for requiring her presence for medical examination, then the prosecution should take steps under Section 439(2) of the said Code, which empowers the High Court or a Court of Sessions to cancel the bail of a person who has been released on bail. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is accepted and the impugned order is quashed to the extent it relates to the conceplation of the bail of the petitioner and issuance of non -bailable warrant of arrest against her. Petition allowed.;