JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under Section 439(2), Cr. P.C. for cancellation of the bail order dated 24th October, 1991, passed in S.B. Cr.Misc. Bail Application No. 3536/1991. 2. The bail order is sought to be cancelled mainly on two grounds. Shri Madhav Mitra submits that in the bail application the offence under Section 376, IPC was minor. So far as the non-mention of Section 376, IPC in the bail application No. 3536/1991 is concerned, it will be sufficient to say that the order of rejection of the bail application passed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 9th October, 1991 was very much before this Court at the time of passing of the Order dated 24th October, 1991. However, Shri R.K. Pareek has invited my attention to the fact that the offence under Section 376, IPC was added later on against respondent No. 1, though prior to the rejection of the bail application by the Sessions Judge, Sikar and, therefore, the offence under Section 376, IPC should also have been preferably mentioned in the bail application but the absence thereof by itself furnishes no ground for cancellation of bail order because the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar was there before this Court at the time of the passing of the bail order dated 24th October, 1991. Therefore, it cannot be said that the bail was granted to the respondent No. 1 (accused) under the wrong impression that the offence under Sec., 376, IPC was not there against him. 3. So far as the ground regarding age is concerned, the school certificate shows her age to be 18 years. The respondent had earlier married the Bhua of the present prosecutrix and later on had divorced her (Maya) i.e.Bhua of the present prosecutrix and the order dated 14th August, 1991 granting divorce had also been placed on record. It is the further case of the respondent that he had performed the marriage with the prosecutrix Sangeeta and the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj, Jaipur on 10th September, 1991 had also been placed on record with the bail application. Along with this bail application the school certificate of Sangeeta had also been placed on record, according to which her date of birth is 4th February, 1973 and therefore, she had attained the age of 18 years in February, 1991. Along with this bail application the school certificate of Sangeeta had also been placed on record, according to which her date of birth is 4th February, 1973 and therefore, she had attained the age of 18 years in February, 1991. In any case, prima facie, the age of the prosecutrix Sangeeta appears to be round about 18 years. Shri Pareek has also cited before me Bhagirath Singh Juneja v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC 372 . 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that there is any ground for cancellation of the bail order dated 24th October, 1991, more particularly when the respondent is very much available for trial and has been attending the trial before the trial Court as stated by Shri R.K. Pareek and not contradicted by Shri Madhav Mitra. 5. The petition for cancellation of bail is hereby rejected.Application rejected. *******