IMPORTANT POINT
Prohibition u/s. 437 Cr. P.C. would apply in such offences which were punishable with death or life imprisonment and not to such offences which are punishable with life imprisonment only.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Phaujdar, J. - The present application raises certain interesting questions of law. The three petitioners were granted bail by the CJM, Jaunpur in a criminal case which was registered for an offence under Section 394 IPC. Aggrieved with the order granting bail to them, the complainant (present respondent No.3) moved the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Application No. 28 of 1996 for cancellation of the bail order recorded in Cd. Case no 253 of 1994: The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 1-5-1998 accepted the prayer and cancelled the bail order recorded by the CJM in favour of the present three applicants. The CJM Jaunpur, was directed to ensure the presence of the accused persons through process of law. This order is under challenged in the present application.

2. It was contended on behalf of the applicants that bail once granted could not have been cancelled except for proven misuse of the privilege and it was further indicated that an earlier application for cancellation of bail was moved vide Application No. 58 of 1994 and the same was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 22-1-1996 and the order read as follows:

"The applicant is absent. The application is hereby rejected.

The complainant appeared and filed a counter affidavit and contended that the applicants should have gone to the proper forum for grant of bail afresh and application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was not a proper one in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The FIR was lodged on 5-91994 at about 8.20 a.m. for an incident at one in the previous night. The informant was one Ram Bachan Yadav'who was informed by Ram Asrey, watchman in a school, along with one Raja Ram Yadav. Some miscreants entered into the school. demanded the key and assaulted Raja Raja Yadav mercilessly and took away valuables from the office of the institution after breaking open the almirah. Ram Asrey claimed to have seen the miscreants. None was, however, named. A statement was given by injured Raja Ram Yadav on 8-9-1994, wherein he had named the present applicants. It was urged on behalf of the present applicants that they and the aforesaid Raja. Ram Yadav were men from the same village and their names should have come in the FIR itself had they really been there. In his order dated 1-5-1998 the learned Sessions Judge found that Section 437(1) Cr. P.C. was a definite bar for the CJM to exercise his discretion towards grant of bail, as such, he thought it to be a proper case for cancellation of bail on the ground of wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the CJM.

4. When an order has been passed under Section 439 Cr. P.C. canceling the bail order recorded under Section 437 the accused would have two courses open. It is always his right to move for bail afresh before the proper forum but his right to challenge the validity of the order of cancellation of bail cannot be taken away simply for the reason that he has a right to pray for bail again. This challenged could not be made in a petition under Section 397 Cr. P.C. as an order recording bail or its cancellation is but an interlocutory order and the validity of the order, therefore, could only be challenged in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr. P.C. invoking the inherent powers of the court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The objection of the complainant in this behalf is thus not tenable and this court can look to the validity of the cancellation of bail in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It must also be indicated that cancellation of bail is normally to be made only on the proof of misuse of privilege of bail either by abscondence or by interference with investigation or by threats to witnesses. But one of the reasons for cancellation of bail could also be a wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the court below and in this light it must be held that if either the Sessions Court or the High Court comes to the concision that the court below had exercised a jurisdicti