GIRRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.