KAN PAN Vs. SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition in revision against the order of the learned Sessions Judge cancelling the bail granted to Kan Dan. It appears that originally when the case was pending against him under s. 302 of the Penal Code in the Court of First Class Magistrate, Parbatsar. he was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaur in exercise of the powers under s. 498 Cr. P.C. Ultimately the accused was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge under s. 302 of the Penal Code but the charge against him was amended to one under s. 304 (2) of the Penal Code and at the same time, the bail which had been granted to him was cancelled and he was sent to judicial lock -up.

(2.) IT is urged by the learned counsel appearing on his behalf that s. 498 Cr. P.C. empowers the High Court or the Sessions Court only to admit a person to bail but that it does not contain a provision for the cancellation of the bail. In support of this proposition, the learned counsel relies upon the plain language of s. 498 as distinguished from that of s. 497 clause 5 and 1932 Allahabad 534(1. Mirza Md. Ibrahim v. emperor.) 1945 Madras 250(2. Crown Prosecutor v. Krishnan.) and 1925 Nagpur 288(3. Local Govt. v. Gulam Jilani.), A comparative reading of the two sections of the Code namely 497 (5) and 498 leads to the irresistible conclusion that while under the first section power to cancel the bail has been reserved to the Courts under certain circumstances, under s. 498, it has been expressly withheld. The authorities cited by the learned counsel fully support the stand taken by him.