Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR J. : The appellant, along with others, has been charged under S. 120-B of the Indian, Penal Code and S. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act (8 of 1878). There is no doubt that the offences charged against the appellant are bailable offences. Under S. 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant was released on bail of Rs. 75,000 with one surety for like amount on December 9, 1957 by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate at Bombay. On January 4, 1958, an application was made by the complainant before the learned Magistrate for cancellation of thew bail; the learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the application on the ground that under S. 496 he had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail. Against this order, the complainant preferred a revisional application before the High Court of Bombay. Another application was preferred by the complainant before the same Court invoking its inherent power under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chagla C. J. and Datar J. who heard these applications took the view that, under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court had inherent power to cancel the bail granted to a person accused of a bailable off