The bail granted by a Magistrate under Cr.P.C. 167(2) can be cancelled by the Sessions Judge under Cr.P.C. 439(2) as it is deemed to be an order of bail under Chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C.

1. The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.204 of 2012 registered by the Inspector of Police, Vellavedu Police Station, Tiruvallur District for offences u/s.120(b) r/w 147, 148 and 302 of IPC. In connection with the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 20.04.2012 and thereafter, produced him before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee. The learned Judicial Magistrate remanded him to judicial custody on the same day. Thereafter, the petitioner was detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 on 05.06.2012. While so, by order dated 13.07.2012 in Crl.O.P.No.13256 of 2012 filed by the wife of the deceased, the investigation was transferred by this court to CBI. Even before the said case was taken over by the CBI for investigation, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.5443 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking statutory bail as the investigation had not been completed within the statutory period. On considering the same, the learned Magistrate passed an order granting bail to the petitioner on the same day. The petitioner was not however released from the prison in view of the order of detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Thereafter, the case was taken over by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, SCB, Chennai for investigation on 30.08.2012. By order dated 21.01.2013, this court revoked the order of detention made against the accused under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Thereafter, by order dated 28.03.2013, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu has granted bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner executed a bond as directed by the court and, he was released from prison on 15.04.2013. Later on, yet another case was registered against the petitioner on 08.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Vellavedu Police Station in Crime No.269 of 2013 for offences u/s.294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC on the allegation that the petitioner had threatened one Arumugam son of Sengalan, who is a witness in the above said murder case. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case in Crime No.269 of 2013 and later on, he was released on bail.

2. Subsequently, the respondent - CBI filed Crl.O.P.No.3043 of 2013 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu under section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, on 26.07.2012. This petition was filed on the ground that the petitioner had abused the liberty given to him by granting bail to him under section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. by threatening a witness. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, issued notice to the petitioner and after hearing both sides, by order dated 30.08.2013 cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner on 26.07.2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee. The said order of cancellation of bail dated 30.08.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, is under challenge in this revision.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent and also perused the records carefully.

4. The only contention raised by the petitioner in this case is that the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, lacks jurisdiction to entertain a petition for cancellation of bail when the bail was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. In other words, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in the instant case, it would have been legal and appropriate only for the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, to entertain a petition for cancellation of bail as provided in Section 437 (5) of Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the respondent ought not to have approached the Court of Sessions invoking the provision under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. straightaway without approaching the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 437 (5) of Cr.P.C. With this allega