IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.87 of 2009 JAI KUMAR @ RINKU & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 8 26.8.2009 The petitioners who are accused in a case under sections 498A and 379/34 of the I.P.C. are aggrieved by order dated 4.12.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Katihar, in Cr.Misc. No.34/08 whereby he cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, vide his order dated 25.8.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they were granted bail on the basis of compromise on 25.8.2007. Subsequently some differences crept in between the parties. O.P. No.2 filed an application for cancellation of bail before the S.D.J.M., Katihar, which was disposed of on 8.7.2008. The petitioners moved the Sessions Judge, Katihar in Cr. Misc. Case No.34/08 against the aforesaid order which was allowed and the bail granted to the accused was cancelled. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid Misc. application was self misconceived as O.P. no.2 could have either moved in revision or could have moved under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that after compromise the petitioner flouted the terms of the compromise. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this 2 Court finds that the application filed before the Sessions Judge, Katihar, is itself misconceived as the appropriate course for O.P. no.2 was to file either revision or petition for cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. In the result, this revision application is allowed and the order dated 4.12.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar, in Cr.Misc. No.34/08 is set aside. However, O.P. no.2, if so advised, may file appropriate application before the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)