JUDGMENT Mr. J.K. Mathur, J. - This application has been moved on behalf of Mohd. Saleem Ansari who is alleged to have conunitted offences punishable under Sections 255,260,267,120-B I.P.C. in crime No. 289 of 1992, P.S. Laharpur, district Sitapur. 2. The Sub-Registrar, Laharpur lodged a First Information Report at P.S. Laharpur on 28.9.1992 saying that an inquiry was made about the stamps and it was discovered that the accused and another had used forged stamps for executing various deeds. 3. An application was moved by the applicant for bail before the Special Sessions Judge, Sitapur. This application was allowed on 17.10.1992. 4. An application for cancellation of bail was moved on behalf of State. This application was heard by the Sessions Judge and was allowed by him on 17.11.1992. The applicant has now come to this Court seeking bail. 5. On behalf of applicant it was primarily urged that the Sessions Judge could not have cancelled the bail granted by the Special Sessions Judge, specially on the grounds on which the bail has been cancelled and on this score the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not lawful. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel. A Sessions Judge is empowered to grant bail under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C. Section 439(2) empowers the High Court and the Court of Sessions to direct any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII of the Cr.P.C. to be arrested and committed to custody. 7. The learned Special Sessions Judge while hearing the bail application passed an order exercising his jurisdiction under section 439(1) Cr.P.C. and the learned Sessions Judge purported to act under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. in cancelling the bail and directing the applicant to be arrested and committed to custody. 8. The cancellation of bail is essentially an order of review of the order granting bail. The order granting or refusing bail or an order cancelling a bail already granted, all have the same question to be determined by the Court, whether it is necessary to have the accused detained during the trial. The reason for a person to be detained during the trial has also been spelled out in a number of cases. The order granting or refusing bail or an order cancelling a bail already granted, all have the same question to be determined by the Court, whether it is necessary to have the accused detained during the trial. The reason for a person to be detained during the trial has also been spelled out in a number of cases. The first reason is to secure his attendance in the Court, the second being to see that he does not interfere with a fair trial by tampering with evidence or otherwise interfering with investigation or trial and lastly to see that he does not repeat the crime and be a social hazard. 9. Once an order for bail has been passed either granting or refusing bail, to the extent it decides the matter, it is final between the parties as far as the Court passing that order is concerned. The order either of grant or refusal of bail may be reviewed only if there are supervening circumstances. The same reason governs the cancellation of bail as governs.a second or a subsequent successive bail application. Unless there are new circumstances brought to the notice of the Court having a bearing on the question of bail, no Court can review its decision on the basis of material which he had before hint at the time of initial decision. 10. In case any person is aggrieved by the bail decision, he can approach the higher Court also which can also go into correctness of decisions of the lower Court either in granting bail or in refusing the bail. 11. In the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State, 1978 (1) SCC, 118 this situation has been explained by the Supreme Court in the following manner : "If, however, a Court of Sessions had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to the Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior Court under Section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to the Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior Court under Section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, it is futile for the State of move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the High Court." Thus the Court can itself review its own decision about bail and either cancel or grant it if new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier brought to the notice of the Court. 12. Similar view was also expressed in the case of State v. Sanjay Gandhi [ 1978 SCC (Cr.) 223 ]. Thus a Sessions Judge while considering the bail granted by him ora not her Sessions Judge can consider the cancellation of hail only on certain circumstance which have arisen since the grant of trial. 13. In the present case, however, the learned Sessions Judge has decided the case considering its seriousness and finding the order passed by the Special Sessions Judge not to be enable on facts and law. He has not stated anything in his order which would show that any circumstances had been brought to his notice which circumstances had arisen since the passing of the last order to show that it was not expedient to allow the applicant to remain at liberty. 14. This could only be done by a higher Court, as has been discussed in the case of Gur Charan Singh (supra). 15. The higher Court while exercising the jurisdiction of cancellation of bail also necessarily ploughs in its supervisory jurisdiction to see whether the orders passed by the lower Court is lawful and tenable and if it find any defend in the order, it can proceed to alter it to rectify. This jurisdiction, however, is not vested in a Court of Coordinate Jurisdiction. This jurisdiction, however, is not vested in a Court of Coordinate Jurisdiction. The Court which passes the order or any Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction can cancel the bail granted by it only if new circumstance are brought to its notice. In this regard reference may also be made to the case of Maiku v. State (1977 CrI.L.J. 1461) where this Court also expressed the same view by saying that a bail may be cancelled only on subsequent consideration of the material which relates only to discovery of subsequent new material which was not already available to the prosecuting agency. It would not permit subsequent consideration of the material already existing on record. 16. In view of above it may be deduced that the jurisdiction under section 439(2) may be exercised by the same Court if fresh material is brought to its notice to show that the accused is either likely to abscond or to interfere with the trial or is likely to commit or has committed offences of the nature for which he was released on bail or has otherwise misused his bail. However, if an application of cancellation of bail is considered by a higher Court, it may also see whether the order passed by the Court below in the grant of bail was valid or not in addition to considering any of the new material brought before it in support of the aforesaid matters. 17. In bail matters it is also proper that an application for cancellation of bail or subsequent application for bait be considered by the same Court which had heard and decided the earlier bail application. One of the reasons for this has been considered in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan [1987 SCC (Cri) 415 ]and State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Sublia Rao [ 1990 SCC (Cri)126] being that it prevents any maneuvering by the applicant to get an application decided by number of Judges till he gets an order of his choice. However, there is another important reason which flows from the fact that the order of cancellation of bail is essentially an order of review, if heard by same Court or by a Court of coordinate jurisdiction. However, there is another important reason which flows from the fact that the order of cancellation of bail is essentially an order of review, if heard by same Court or by a Court of coordinate jurisdiction. In bail orders it is not usual to write a detailed order as it may interfere with the trial and, therefore, the Judge who has passed the order would know the facts and circumstances which had been raised before him and can easily decipher if there are new circumstances appearing in the case to warrant a review of the earlier order. The cancellation application for this reason should also be normally decided by the same Court unless there are strong reasons for the application being not put up before the same judge for disposal. 18. In any case in view of above, I find that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge could not be passed by him inasmuch as it is an examination of the order passed by Special Sessions Judge on merit. In view of this the order of cancellation is not valid and the applicant, is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the order passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Sitapur. However, the State will be at liberty to move the appropriate Court for cancellation on permissible ground if they so want. The application for bail is allowed. The applicant Mohd. Saleem Ansari shall be released on his furnishing personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.