P. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the informant under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Codet) for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 by order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur in G. R. Case No. 1 of 1996. The aforesaid case was registered under Sections 341/323/379/506/34, I. P. C. The Magistrate granted bail on the ground that though the alleged offences were non-bailable, they were triable by the Magistrate and was further held that since the accused persons were local persons there was no possibility of their abscondence.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the informant submitted that the allegations contained in the F. I. R. clearly made out a case under Sections 395 and 307, I. P. C. , as such the Magistrate should not have granted bail to the opposite parties merely because the case was registered under sections 379 and 506. I. P. C. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted the relevant case diary. The accused persons have entered appearance through the advocate. It has been contended on their behalf that an application for cancellation of bail at the instance of the informant is not maintainable. It is further submitted that since there is no allegation that the accused persons after being released on bail, have abused their liberty in any manner, the discretionary order of bail granted in their favour should not be cancelled.

( 3 ) THE F. I. R. st submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the accused persons is not tenable. It is true that ordinarily it is the duty of the State to prosecute the accused persons specially in cases relating to cognizable offences. However, it cannot be said that in criminal cases being pursued by the State, the informant has no say or any locus standi. The jurisdiction of Sessions Judge or High Court under section 439 (2) of the Code is very wide and attention of the Court seeking cancellation of bail of accused persons can be drawn by the State as well as the informant. The fact that the State is not keen about cancellation of bail, granted to an accused person may be a relevant consideration specially in less serious offence involving lesser punishment. But the application of an informant or an injured or even a witness for cancellation of bail cannot be thrown out merely on the ground of lack of locus standi.

( 4 ) PERUSAL of the F. I. R. and the Case Diary indicates a lack of application of mind on the part of the police as well as the Magistrate. The F. I. R. itself discloses that the case had been registered against four known persons and another unknown person. The allegation discloses that five persons were involved. Keeping in view the nature of allegations in the F. I. R. that the culprits used force and snatched away money after assaulting the informant, prima facie commission of an offence under section 395, I. P. C. is made out. For the reasons best known to the police the case was registered under Section 379 I. P. C. The Magistrate seems to have mechanically acted upon the sections indicated in the F. I. R. by the police, and promptly proceeded to release the accused persons on bail without bothering to find out the real nature of allegations. It is the duty of a Magistrate even at the stage of considering the question of bail to apply judicial mind to find out prima facie the nature of offence alleged to have been committed. Mere registration of a case under a particular section does not preclude the Magistrate from delving into the matter to find out about the real offence. Of course, endeavour at that stage is to find out a prima facie case and not to come to any definite conclusion. Under section 437, Cr. P. C. , while considering the question of bail the Magistrate is to find out about the offence alleged to have been committed. If it is prima facie found that an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life has