( 1. ) IN Sessions Trial No. 16/85, the Sessions Judge Bhind held the non-applicants guilty of offences punishable under Sections 326/149, 323/149 and 148 I. P. C. and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment the longest being five years rigorous imprisonment. They preferred an444 appeal. Vide order dated 13-1-87 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 281/86 this Court directed the execution of the sentences of imprisonment to be suspended under Section 389 (1), Cr. P. C. subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one solvent surety in the like amount. The non-applicants/appellants furnished bail bonds and are thus at liberty pending appeal.

( 2. ) ON 9-9-87, an application under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by the State under instructions of the Law Department praying for cancellation of the bail and for further direction committing the accused/appellants to custody pending appeal on the ground that subsequent to being enlarged on bail, they have made an abuse of the privilege, they are threatening the complainant and are indulging in other criminal activities creating a terror in the village. The non-applicants have controverted the allegations by filing reply on affidavit sworn by one Keshavsingh.

( 3. ) A preliminary objection has been raised to the entertainability of the application on behalf of the non-applicants. It is submitted that Section 439 (2), Cr. P. C. which makes a provision for cancellation of bail is limited in its application to such persons only who have been released on bail under Chap. XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. His further submitted that no provision for cancellation of bail is to be found in Section 389, Cr. P. C. which is a self-contained provision and hence a prayer for cancellation of bail of a convict (who ceases to be an accused) whose sentence has been directed to be suspended under Section 389, Cr. P. C. , cannot be entertained by having resort to the provisions of Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. It is insisted that the prayer for cancellation of bail should be rejected in limine.

( 4. ) THE learned Counsel for the complainant has relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in Public Prosecutor v. George Williams, AIR 1951 Mad 1042 to counter the submission of the counsel for the non-applicants, wherein it has been observed that the provisions of Section 497 (5) read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 18%, gives ample power to the High Court to deal effectively with accused persons released on bail pending appeal who by their continuing to commit the crimes denied in the appeal memorandum render themselves liable to re-arrest and committal to custody. It is obvious that provisions similar to those in Section 497 (5) will attach themselves analogously to Section 426 bail cases also, in order to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. " It has been further held-It will be atrocious if the High Court which grants bail to an appellant, pending his appeal, on his application protesting his innocence, is not empowered to cancel his bail, and rearrest him, and commit him to custody when he is proved to have abused the process of the Court, by getting bail on false pretences, and misbehaves and proves himself unworthy of continuing on bail.

( 5. ) IN my opinion, a prayer for cancelling the bail furnished pursuant to an order for suspension of sentence can be entertained and such powers can be exercised by the High Court without having resort to the provisions contained in Section 439 (2), Cr. P. C. 1973, (equivalent to Section 498 (2) of the old Cr. P. C. and pari materia with Section 497 (5) thereof ).

( 6. ) ONCE a person has been held guilty of having committed an offence, he cannot claim suspension of sentence pending his appeal and consequent release on bail as a matter of right. The power to enlarge on bail after conviction, though discretionary, is not so wide as