JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. -Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to pass orders for arrest of the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and commit them to custody.

3. The allegation against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in brief is that they have created forged documents, suppressed financial data and have not incorporated the same in the balance sheet from the year 2010 to 2013. There is further allegation that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have misappropriated 35 acres of joint family property and also transferred the shares and management of Anup Malleables Ltd. to the co-accused persons and they have also given a false declaration before the Hon''ble Calcutta High Court.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 who are the accused persons of Complaint Case No. 2703 of 2014 have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.12.2015, passed in A.B.P. No. 1879 of 2015, by the Additional Sessions Judge -II, Dhanbad. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this petition has been filed challenging the said order dated 21.12.2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge -II, Dhanbad on the ground that the said order of anticipatory bail has been passed illegally with improper consideration of the materials placed before the court and by arbitrary exercise of the discretion. Regarding the scope of 439(2) Cr.P.C. learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gurcharan Singh & Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and Raj Kumar Sharma & Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 , paragraph no.16 of which reads as under:-

"16. Section 439 of the new Code confers special powers on High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. This was also the position under Section 498, Cr.P.C. of the old Code. That is to say, even if a Magistrate refuses to grant bail to an accused person, the High Court or the Court of Session may order for grant of bail in appropriate cases. Similarly under Section 439(2) of the new Code, the High Court or the Court of Session may direct any person who has been released on bail to be arrested and committed to custody. In the old Code, Section 498(2) was worded in somewhat different language when it said that a High Court or Court of Session may cause any person who has been admitted to bail under sub-section (1) to be arrested and may commit him to custody. In other words, under Section 498(2) of the old Code, a person who had been admitted to bail by the High Court could be committed to custody only by the High Court. Similarly, if a person was admitted to bail by a Court of Session, it was only the Court of Session that could commit him to custody. This restriction upon the power of entertainment of an application for committing a person, already admitted to bail, to custody, is lifted in the new Code under Section 439(2). Under Section 439(2) of the new Code a High Court may commit a person released on bail under Chapter XXXIII by any Court including the Court of Session to custody, if it thinks appropriate to do so. It must, however, be made clear that a Court of Session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted by the High Court unless new circumstances arise during the progress of the trial after an accused person has been admitted to bail by the High Court. If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior Court under Section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judg