IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7983 of 2008 RAMASHISH SAHNI S/O LATE CHINTU SAHNI ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. AWADHESH SAHNI SON OF LATE BISHWANATH SAHNI 3. DILIP SAHNI SON OF BUDHAN SAHNI 4. MOHAN SAHNI @ BHOLA SAHNI SON OF RAM BASU SAHNI 5. ASHOK SAHNI SON OF BUDHAN SAHNI 6. MANGAL SAHNI SON OF RAM CHANDRA SAHANI 7. BUDHAN SAHNI SON OF BAL GOVIND SAHNI. ---- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra, Advocate. For the O.Ps : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 03 27.09.2010 Heard the parties. Petitioner/informant invokes revisional jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order dated 27.07.2007 whereby the accuseds/ opposite parties herein were granted bail by the learned Magistrate. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2007 passed on an application filed under Section 437(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/informant was considered and rejected. Counsel for the petitioner states that materials on record reveal that the accuseds/opposite parties herein remained in custody for some time whereafter some of them were released on bail under order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate whereas some of them privileged with bail by this Court. Aforesaid order granting bail was passed on 27.07.2007 which was not initially challenged. Subsequently an application seems to have been filed for cancelling the bail bond(s) which was considered and rejected by order dated 18.12.2007 on the ground that there was no allegation of misuse of the privilege of bail in any manner. The petitioner has now chosen to assail both the orders dated 27.07.2007 and 18.12.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Magistrate in such circumstances shall have no jurisdiction in view of decision reported in 2001 CRI.L.J. 1730 (Prahlad Singh Bhati v. N.C.T. Delhi & Another). Learned Court below, referring to decision of this Court rendered in the case of 2002(1), East Cr C 483(Pat) ( Sita Ram Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar), has taken a view that the Court in such matter should not act mechanically in cancelling the bail earlier granted to the petitioner only on the ground that subsequently a graver offence has been employed in the prosecution case. This Court is satisfied that no case for invocation of revisional jurisdiction has been made out. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)