JUDGMENT 1. - It is an application for cancellation of bail granted to the accused non-petitioners Shivlal and Banni @ Banay Singh by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar under his order dated 6th November 1989. This application for cancellation of bail has been filed primarily on the ground that this court in S. B. Criminal Bail Application No. 30/2/1989 under order dated 20th October 1989 had dismissed the pre-arrest bail application of these very accused non-petitioners and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge should not have granted pre-arrest bail to the accused non-petitioners. 2. The case relates to the alleged beating given by the two accused non-petitioners and five others to one Hurmet. A report of the incident was station Rajgarh on 7th October 1989, the occurrence having been taken on the same day. A perusal of the F.I.R. No. 162/1989 P.S. Ramgarh will show that the petitioner Sahabuddin has mentioned therein that a dispute was going on in between his uncle Makul and Fateh Singh of Ramgarh in agricultural lands. He and his father Hurmet along with other persons who have been named in the F.I.R. was going from Rajgarh to village Sureta and at about 5.30 p.m. when they were near their village in the jungle, Banni & Banay Singh S/o Fateh Singh by caste Gurjar, Moti, Kailash and another person who was relation to Kailash were standing there armed with weapons. Banni was armed with farsa. Kaili @ Kailash was armed with country made pistol and the rests were armed with lathis and all caused injuries to Hurmet. The injuries on Hurmet were examined and a perusal of injury report will show that he had as many as 17 injuries on different parts of the body including on his head. In the opinion of the doctor as many as 8 injuries were such which needed X-ray. X-ray was advised. In the aforesaid 8 injuries, injury Nos. 13, 14 & 15 are also included and it will appear that those injuries were, lacerated wounds, bone deep (over mid-line), lacerated wound on right parital region of sholder x 1/2 and lacerated wound on the right parital region of skull 3x 1/2 and the bone leap. X-ray was advised. In the aforesaid 8 injuries, injury Nos. 13, 14 & 15 are also included and it will appear that those injuries were, lacerated wounds, bone deep (over mid-line), lacerated wound on right parital region of sholder x 1/2 and lacerated wound on the right parital region of skull 3x 1/2 and the bone leap. It appears that X-ray was taken so far as injuries on head were concerned no injury to the bone is said to have been found but as many as 4 fractures on the other parts of the body were found. 3. An application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of these two accused non-petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge under his order dated 16th October 1989, the order being detailed one, while allowed the bail to one Laxman Singh but disallowed bail to the accused non-petitioners Banni and Shivlal. After the aforesaid order the application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. was filed in this court and this court in S.B. Criminal Bail Appl. No. 3062/1989, agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the pre-arrest bail application on 20th October 1989. It is not disputed that thereafter another application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the accused non-petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar and the learned Sessions Judge under his order dated 28th October 1989 again dismissed the pre-arrest bail application. It appears that thereafter an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of Kaili @ Kailash and the learned Sessions Judge allowed him pre-arrest bail. Thereafter, another application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned Judge and the learned Judge under his order dated 6th November 1989 allowed pre-arrest bail to the accused non-petitioners Banni @ Banay Singh and Shivlal. 4. No doubt the powers of this court as well as of Sessions Court are concurrent but the question is that once this court has disallowed bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C., whether propriety demands or is it proper for the learned Sessions Judge then to allow Bail to the same accused person to whom bail has been disallowed by this court ? In my opinion the learned Sessions Judge may have jurisdiction but in a case in which this court has dismissed bail then it will be improper exercise of jurisdiction and discretion to allow bail to the accused person. In my opinion the learned Sessions Judge may have jurisdiction but in a case in which this court has dismissed bail then it will be improper exercise of jurisdiction and discretion to allow bail to the accused person. If this view is not taken then there may be no sanctity of the higher court and if this court dismisses the bail application, next day the learned Sessions Judge will release the accused-person on bail. In my opinion when once this court disallows bail to the accused, then the second bail application should only be moved to this court only and if one is moved before the learned Sessions Judge or any subordinate court, the sub-ordinate courts should not order the release of the accused person on bail, even if they may have and have jurisdiction in the matter. The question no doubt may be different if circumstances have changed. But again mere filing of the charge-sheet will not be a changed circumstance because when this court considers the bail application, the court considers the material available on record till then and unless fresh evidence has been collected which may throw some light, the learned Sessions Court who has concurrent jurisdiction as stated earlier, should put its hands off and should not release the accused on bail. It may be observed here that even the practice of this court is that once the bail matter is dealt with by one bench of this court then the same bench ordinarily should hear if any other bail application has been filed on behalf of the same accused in this court. This practice, in my opinion, is proper to avoid conflict of decisions, the possibility of which cannot be excluded even if the circumstance do not change. Thus, in my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge, should not allow bail in a case where this court had disallowed bail and the proper course for the party is to approach this court again. 5. It was contended by Mr. Bajwa that there was change of circumstance in this case in as much as after the dismissal of the bail in this court, opinion was sought by the investigation officer front the medical jurist in respect of three injuries found on the skull, on vital part of Hurmet and medical jurist has opined that the injuries were not dangerous to life. The said opinion is said to have been given by the medical jurist on the reference to him made by S.H.O. of Police station Ramgarh on an application of none else but on behalf of the accused non-petitioner. It may be stated that in this case, it is a case where there were 17 injuries out of which four injuries were grievous and three were on vital parts like head and whether or not an injury on the vital part was dangerous to life alone is not a criteria to conclude whether an offence u/s 307 I.P.C. is made out or not. A bare reading of Sec. 307 I.P.C. will show that doing of any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that, if he by that act one causes death he would be guilty or murder is sufficient. There the word 'intention' is crucial and even if no injury is caused in some case it still may be then an offence u/s 307 I.P.C. is made out. In the circumstances in which a gun or any other fire arm is used and it is shot from a close range and no injury is caused still it will depend whether the intention of causing death was there or not. Therefore, the fact that there were 17 injuries, three of which bone deep on the head are such circumstance which at the stage of pre-arrest bail should not have been ignored by the learned Sessions Judge. The case where there is a single injury, on the head along with other circumstances, may stand on different footing, but in a case where as many as 17 injuries are there, out of them three injuries are grievous, may be the injuries on the head are not grievous, in my opinion the mere writing by the medical jurist that the injuries on the head were not dangerous to life could not be a circumstance have changed and the accused would be allowed pre-arrest bail. 6. Coming to the question that if Kaili @ Kailash similarly situated person was allowed pre-arrest bail whether the accused should be allowed bail or not. It may be again stated that Kaili never came to this court and there is no application of cancellation of bail so far as Kaili is concerned. 6. Coming to the question that if Kaili @ Kailash similarly situated person was allowed pre-arrest bail whether the accused should be allowed bail or not. It may be again stated that Kaili never came to this court and there is no application of cancellation of bail so far as Kaili is concerned. I will, therefore not examine the propriety or legality of the order of pre-arrest bail of Kaili but I will go to the extend that even if a similarly situated person is released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, on earlier occasion the application of other person having been so dismissed by this court, the learned Sessions Judge should not take bail of the accused whose bail has been dismissed by this court and the order if any, should be made by this court and this court may consider the question as to what is the effect of the order of the learned Sessions Judge having released the similarly situated persons on bail. 7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that when once this court dismisses a bail, Sessions Judges should not exercise discretion to release the accused on bail and the exercise of discretion by the learned Sessions Judge will not be proper and this court may in such cases cancel bail. 8. So far as ground of cancellation are concerned, they are many and if the learned Sessions Judge in the situation as aforesaid, when this court has disallowed bail had allowed bail to the accused it may be a ground for cancellation of bail on the ground that it is not sound exercise of discretion. 9. Consequently, I hereby allowed the application for cancellation of bail, granted to the accused non-petitioners Banni @ Banay and Shivlal under his order dated 6th November 1989. It will be open for them to move u/s 439 Cr.P.C. to the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge will dispose of the application un-affected from what has been said herein and it may be stated that I have cancelled the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground of propriety as the bail, in my opinion, once has been disallowed by this court u/s 438 Cr.P.C. should not have been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge under that very provision.Application allowed. *******