JUDGMENT R. Singh, J. - Through this petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure one Moti Lal, who has been refused bail by Sesssions Judge by his order dated 10-2-88 has prayed that the said order be set aside and the be released on bail bonds which have been furnished or on execution of fresh bail bonds. 2. What has happened is that one First Information Report was lodged regarding assault on the complainant. It was registered under Sections 323/504/506 IPC and bail was granted during investigation to the present applicant and some other co-accused. Then injury report came. It showed that one injury was grieyous. The complainant moved an application praying that a charge u/s 325 IPC be framed. Then Magistrate passed order dated 16-10-87. In this order he discussed the injuries and opined that the case fell u/s 308 IPC. He fixed the case for passing committal order and he also issued notice to show cause why bail granted to the accused should not be cancelled. Against this order of the Magistrate a revision was filed by the applicant. It was dismissed on 17-11-87. Against that dismissal of revision or against the order of the Magistrate dated 16-10-87 no application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed and those orders became final Then Committal order was passed finally and the three accused were taken into custody. u/s 209 Code of Criminal Procedure subject to provisions relating to bail the accused could be remanded to custody. The applicant has not filed copy of the order of the Magistrate dated 16-10-87 or the order passed in revision on 17-11-87 probably because the same have not been directly questioned. On the same day, an application for bail was moved before the Sessions Judge. The accused were released on bail provisionally but they were directed to be present on 4-2-88. This order through which the accused were released on bail has not been filed and I say that it was a provisional order because the accused were directed to be present on 4-2-88. On that date, all the three accused were taken into custody by the Sessions Judge. So it seems that the order passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail in the beginning was some sort of interlocutory order. Then bail application was moved on 5-2-88. It was disposed of through the impugned order dated 10-2-88. On that date, all the three accused were taken into custody by the Sessions Judge. So it seems that the order passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail in the beginning was some sort of interlocutory order. Then bail application was moved on 5-2-88. It was disposed of through the impugned order dated 10-2-88. By this order dated 10-2-88 the learned Sessions Judge considered the case and he released two co-accused on bail but refused bail to the applicant. The applicant did not come to High Court through an application for bail u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure and he moved the present application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer mentioned earlier. 3. The argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that once bail has been granted it cannot be cancelled on ground that the charge was amended after submissions of charge-sheet. According to him the order granting bail oh the basis of earlier charge-sheet could not be cancelled and accused could only be asked either to remain on the same bail or to furnish fresh bail bands. These arguments in substance say that the order of the Magistrate cancelling the bail is erroneous. But against that order no relief has been claimed in this application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. Rather in this application relief is being claimed against the order of the Sessions Judge refusing bail to the applicant and granting bail to the co-accused. So this argument whether the Magistrate could cancel the bail or not, does not crop-up for consideration in this case and it is on account of this reason that the applicant even did not file copy of that order or the order passed in the revision, before this Court. The application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure does not appear to be directed against the order of the Magistrate. 4. Suppose, one person gives a fist blow on the spleen of a person and bail is granted u/s 323 IPC. Then the person dies and it comes on record that he had a deceased spleen to the knowledge of the assailant who gave blow on the deceased spleen that was ruptured with intention to kill. Then can the bail be not cancelled? Can he be not taken into custody for murder? If he can be prosecuted for murder why his bail cannot be cancelled? Then can the bail be not cancelled? Can he be not taken into custody for murder? If he can be prosecuted for murder why his bail cannot be cancelled? These are some of the questions which can arise for decision in the example that has been cited. But I do not propose to answer them as they are not required to be answered, because no relief has been claimed against order for cancellation of bail. 5. In the case Raghubir Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149 following observations were made: Where bail has been granted under the proviso to Section 167(2) for the default of the prosecution in not completing the investigation in 60 days, after the defect is cured by the filing of a charge-sheet, the prosecution may seek to have the bail cancelled on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest him and commit him to custody. In the last mentioned case, one would expect very strong grounds indeed. If bail can be cancelled when a person has been released u/s 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure then can it be not cancelled when a new offence seems to have been committed which was not taken into consideration earlier. 6. In Jawahar Mal 10 CWN 1093 it was said that the bail may be cancelled by the Court itself which granted it; if further evidence is produced for believing the accused to be guilty. However, as said earlier, these questions need not be considered in this case. 7. Here the position is that accused had already been taken into custody by the Magistrate. They applied for bail to the Sessions Judge, he granted bail to two accused persons and he refused bail to the applicant. So the applicant could have approached High Court u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure and he could have asked for bail. There does not appear to be much scope for moving an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in such a case. For exercising powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure three following principles appear to be settled: 1. The power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. 2. For exercising powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure three following principles appear to be settled: 1. The power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. 2. The power should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 3. It should not be exercised as against the express bar of law in any other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. In the case before us there is Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure under which the applicant can apply for bail; so this power to grant bail is not to be exercised in this case u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on the case Noorullah v. State of U.P. decided by a learned Single Judge and reported in 1987 ACR 625 : 1988 ACC 19 The entire judgment is as extractad below: "This is an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the charge-sheet, dated July 24, 1987 vide charge-sheet, dated July 24, 1987 applicants have been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. This is the supplementary charge-sheet to the earlier charge-sheet submitted against the applicants on August 4, 1986 only u/s 435 IPC. On the earlier charge-sheet, the applicants were granted bail on 30th April, 1987 and there is nothing to indicate that they ever abused or misused the liberty that was granted to them. In the circumstances I am constrained to observe that the Magistrate shall allow the applicants to remain on the same bail despite the supplementary charge-sheet or he may ask them to file fresh bonds for the amount he may please to order. With the aforesaid direction, this application is dismissed as no case for interference u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out." In this case the application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed with certain observations. No provision of any law was considered in the judgment. In the brief judgment merely some observations were made in favour of the applicant and it was said that the liberty was not abused so the applicant should be allowed to remain on the bail despite supplementary charge-sheet. No provision of any law was considered in the judgment. In the brief judgment merely some observations were made in favour of the applicant and it was said that the liberty was not abused so the applicant should be allowed to remain on the bail despite supplementary charge-sheet. In these circumstances, it appears to me that the learned Single Judge deciding the case did not intend to lay down any law but on the facts of the case, his Lordship merely thought it fit that the applicant should remain on bail or fresh bonds should be taken from him in the circumstances of the case. In the case before me, it may be possible to grant bail u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure but what I say is that this prayer is not to be considered u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the circumstances of this case especially that the order cancelling the bail has been confirmed in revision and there is no prayer for quashing the order passed in the revision. 11. So the order refusing bail does not suffer from any infirmity and it cannot be set aside. The result is that this application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed.