IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2471 of 2008 1. RAMKALI DEVI, WIFE OF BAGESHWARI SINGH. 2. BAGESHWARI SINGH, SON OF LATE LALU SINGH. 3. SANJAY SINGH, SON OF BAGESHWARI SINGH. 4. LUVKUSH SINGH, SON OF BAGESHWARI SINGH. ALL 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE:MANDAI, POLICE STATION KHIZERSARI, DISTRICT-GAYA. 5. RAJENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE DEO NANDAN SINGH. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE: KAILASH MATH, POLICE STATION: KONCH, DISTRICT-GAYA…………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DOHA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE LALU SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE:MANDAI, POLICE STATION:KHIZERSARAI, DISTRICT-GAYA. ………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Maya Nand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. ----------- O R D E R This application by the named accused of Complaint Case No.1107 of 2001 is for the quashing of the order dated 5.12.2007 passed in Cr. Revision No.25 of 2006/58 of 2006 by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Gaya, whereby he has set aside the order dated 21.4.2006 passed by Sri S.B.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaya, whereunder he had dismissed the petition filed by the complainant for cancellation of bail of the petitioners. By the impugned order directions were also issued to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order keeping in mind the ratio of the case of Usha Devi Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR - 2 - 200. It appears that one Doha Devi, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint alleging commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 452, 380, 323, 417, 420, 467 and 363 I.P.C. and after inquiry cognizance was taken under Sections 147, 323 and 363 I.P.C. and summons were issued. The petitioners appeared and were enlarged on bail on 27.2.2002. It further appears that after evidence was adduced at the pre- charge stage by the complainant, a petition was filed by one Kishori Singh, claiming to be the karpardaz of the complainant, on 2.2.2005 praying that since an offence under Section 364 I.P.C. is also made out the case should be committed to the court of sessions for trial which was not accepted. Then another petition by the self-same Kishori Singh was filed on 13.7.2005 for adding the charge under Section 364 I.P.C. However, the learned Magistrate did not accept the same by his order dated 30.9.2005 and directed the accused to be present in court for framing of charge under Sections 323, 380 and 365 I.P.C. Not satisfied therewith, the said Kishori Singh as karpardaz filed yet another petition on 28.11.2005 for cancellation of bail of the petitioners which was rejected by order dated 21.4.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the said Kishori Singh preferred Cr. Revision No.25 of 2006 before the Sessions Court which was disposed of by the impugned order. It is clear that the complainant is none other than Doha Devi and Kishori Singh appears as one of her witnesses in the complaint. It - 3 - is also clear that this Kishori Singh in the capacity of a karpardaz of the complainant filed all the petitions before the learned Magistrate as also the revision before the Sessions Court. Petitions and revisions filed by the karpardaz are not maintainable and ought not to have been entertained. That apart the power of cancellation of bail is vested only in the Sessions Court and the High Court and the learned Magistrate rightly did not oblige the karpardaz. There is another aspect of the matter. An order directing the Magistrate to reconsider the question of cancellation of bail is not permissible in a revision and the case relied upon by the Sessions Court has no application in the facts and the circumstances of the case. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the application is allowed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 19th day of August, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.