JUDGMENT 1. - This is a bail application under section 439 Cr. P. C. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20-6-75 at about 12.00 O' clock in the day Shokin Nath and four others raided the house of Mohan Jogi, who was married to Mst. Gajki daughter of Shokin Nath. Shokin Nath attacked Mohan Jogi with a Dharia and thereby injured his right thumb. When his sister Chhodki aged 10 years intervened, the Dharia while aimed at Mohan for the second time, fell upon Mst. Chhodki and killed her instantaneously. The accused then abducted Mst. Gajki. Shokin Nath was arrested on 5-6-75 on the charge of aforesaid murder. But the investigation could not be completed within 60 days of his arrest. The learned judicial Magistrate by his order dated 6-8-75 granted him bail under the provision to sub-sec. (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal procedure. But while committing the accused to the court of session on 1-9-75, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed him under custody. The accused Shokin Nath then made a bail application to the learned sessions judge, who by his order dated 20-9-75 granted bail to three others but refused that of Shokin Nath. Shokin Nath then moved this court under section 439 Cr. P. C. for bail but it was rejected by me on 1-3-1976. Shokin Nath has made this second application. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. I have heard arguments. 3. As regards the merits of the case the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no case under section 302 is made out because the blow which killed Mst. Chhodki was not aimed at her. It fell upon her per hance. In similar circumstances, in Hardeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 179 it was held that the accused was guilty not of murder but culpable homicide under section 304 part I. In Gulab Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1975 Cri.L.J. 695 a similar view was taken. In Shiv Singh v. State, 1975 Cri.L.J. 704 the case was of a spear blow accidentally struck but it was held that it was covered not under section 302 IPC. but part II of 304 IPC. In Dev Nath v. The State, 1952 RLW 394 a blow on the head was considered to fail under section 325 IPC. and not under section 304 IPC. 4. but part II of 304 IPC. In Dev Nath v. The State, 1952 RLW 394 a blow on the head was considered to fail under section 325 IPC. and not under section 304 IPC. 4. I have considered over all these submissions and it appears to me that prima facie it cannot be said at this stage that the applicant was not guilty of an offence under section 302 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge observed that there were sufficient grounds to believe that the accused was guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. Same was the view I took while rejecting the bail application on 1-3-76, and I do not now feel pursuaded to think otherwise. 5. The learned counsel then, submitted, that the accused was entitled to bail in view of the decision of this court in Rewat Den v. State of Rajasthan, 1975 Cri.L.J. 691 In that case it was held that the power of the Committing Magistrate to cancel the bail of an accused who has been bailed out by him and to remand him to custody during and until the conclusion of the trial (under section 209 Cr. P. C.) is subject to the provisions contained in sub-sec. (5) of section 437 Cr. P.C. The Committing Magistrate, who has admitted an accused to bail under sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) of section 437 Cr. P. C., may cancel his bail and commit him to custody if he considers it necessary so to do. The accused to whom bail is granted by the Magistrate, may be arrested and committed custody if he, in any, manner, misuses the liberty granted to him, or if he has done or has tried to do something which hampers or is likely to hamper the administration of justice in any manner. 6. It was urged that the learned Magistrate was not therefore, authorised to commit the accused (already on bail) in custody unless the accused fell within 5 circumstances stated by the Madras High Court in the Public Prosecutor v. George Williams alias Victor, AIR 1951 Mad 1042 in which bail would he cancelled. None of such circumstances exists in this case. There is no allegation that the accused has misused his liberty, In this connection. None of such circumstances exists in this case. There is no allegation that the accused has misused his liberty, In this connection. Sita Ram Singh v. The State of Bihar, 1973 Cr.L.J. 334, Gaya Singh v. Kedar Singh, 1973 Cr.L.J. 1526 and Joaquim Mann v. State, 1973 Cr.L.J. 1876 were further cited. It was submitted that no case for cancellation of bail was made out against the accused. 7. The learned counsel then relied upon Ram Murti v. State, 1976 Cr.L.J. 211 , in which too as in this case, the bail was granted under section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. In that case it was held that once the bail has been g anted by the court, it can be cancelled only for valid reasons, even where the bail is under section 167 (2). In Rampal v. State of U.P., 1976 Cr.L.J.288 it was held that where while granting bail under section 167, a condition was attached to the order that it shall be deemed to be vacated and cancelled as soon as the charge-sheet is received, such a direction was illegal. It was further observed that the bail so granted shall remain valid till it is cancelled on the grounds on which bails arc cancelled under law. The receipt of the charge-sheet in the court can by itself be no ground for cancellation of the bail. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to this aspect of the matter which was not urged before me in this light when the earlier bail application was argued before me on 1st of March, 1976. In view of the decision of this Court in Rewat Dev v, State of Rajasthan (5), it has to be seen whether there was justification for the learned Sessions Judge to refuse bail when the applicant was already on bail under section 167. Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge also did not examine the question in the light in which it has now been presented before me. Before him, the case was argued only on merits and it was why he refused to grant the bail to the applicant. Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge also did not examine the question in the light in which it has now been presented before me. Before him, the case was argued only on merits and it was why he refused to grant the bail to the applicant. Having reconsidered the matter, it appears to me that in view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the of this court, the learned Judicial Magistrate was not well within his rights to commit the accused under custody unless there were grounds for cancellation of bail and the bail was cancelled. Neither in the order of the learned Magistrate, nor in that of the learned Sessions Judge is there any thing which can be said to justify the order of cancellation of bail. 9. I, therefore, accept this bail application and direct that the accused applicant shall be enlarged until the conclusion, of the trial provided he furnishes personal bond in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 2,500/- (rupees two thousand and five hundred) each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, for his appearance in that court on all dates of hearings and also as and when he is called upon to do so. *******