MOHD.YAMIN, J. - (1.) THIS Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed on behalf of Girraj and Smt. Chhimma against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar on 15.12.2000 by which the bail of the petitioners has been cancelled.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar on behalf of petitioners, Mr. S.S. Sunda on behalf of complainant Mahada as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Briefly stated, the facts are that Mahada lodged a report on 25.4.1999 at Police Station, Bansoor stating that his younger brother Hanuman was residing separately. The first wife of Hanuman died issue -less and thereafter he remarried with Chhimma. Due to heavy work in the fields, Hanuman engaged Girraj accused as labourer who developed illicit relations with Chhimma. When Hanuman came to know about this affair, he tried to stop but Chhimma and Girraj started ill -treating Hanuman and ultimately then succeeded in causing murder of Hanuman. A case under Section 302 read with Section 120 -B IPC was registered and after complete investigation, police submitted challan against both the petitioners. Accused petitioners moved bail application before this Court as well as before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who was trying the case. S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 3618/1999 filed by Smt. Chhimma was dismissed on 11.8.1999. Her third bail application No. 981 was dismissed on 12.5.2000. The bail application of Girraj was dismissed on 24.2.2000 and again on 12.5.2000. By 12.5.2000, 12 material witnesses were examined by the trial court but on 17.5.2000, bail application of Smt. Chhimma was allowed by the trial court on 23.5.2000 while bail application of accused Girraj was allowed on 6.7.2000. Mahada moved an application before this Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners which was sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar who by impugned order dated 15.12.2000 allowed it and cancelled the bail of both the petitioners. It is against this order that this petition has been preferred.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Dhankar submitted that the High Court could not have forwarded the petition to the learned Sessions Judge instead it should have itself decided it. So the impugned order is illegal. The second argument is that the application for cancellation of bail could not have been filed by Mahada and it is only the State which could have done so. The third argument is that the order by which bail was granted to the accused petitioners has not been challenged and fourthly there are no circumstances under which bail could have been cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge. He agreed that of course the High Court had dismissed the bail applications of both the accused persons but during the period in between 17.5.2000 and the date on which bail applications of the petitioners were granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, circumstances had changed as some witnesses had been examined. Therefore, he has submitted that this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar dated 15.12.2000.;