P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the informant under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Codet) for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 by order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur in G. R. Case No. 1 of 1996. The aforesaid case was registered under Sections 341/323/379/506/34, I. P. C. The Magistrate granted bail on the ground that though the alleged offences were non-bailable, they were triable by the Magistrate and was further held that since the accused persons were local persons there was no possibility of their abscondence. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the informant submitted that the allegations contained in the F. I. R. clearly made out a case under Sections 395 and 307, I. P. C. , as such the Magistrate should not have granted bail to the opposite parties merely because the case was registered under sections 379 and 506. I. P. C. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted the relevant case diary. The accused persons have entered appearance through the advocate. It has been contended on their behalf that an application for cancellation of bail at the instance of the informant is not maintainable. It is further submitted that since there is no allegation that the accused persons after being released on bail, have abused their liberty in any manner, the discretionary order of bail granted in their favour should not be cancelled. ( 3 ) THE F. I. R. st submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the accused persons is not tenable. It is true that ordinarily it is the duty of the State to prosecute the accused persons specially in cases relating to cognizable offences. However, it cannot be said that in criminal cases being pursued by the State, the informant has no say or any locus standi. The jurisdiction of Sessions Judge or High Court under section 439 (2) of the Code is very wide and attention of the Court seeking cancellation of bail of accused persons can be drawn by the State as well as the informant. The fact that the State is not keen about cancellation of bail, granted to an accused person may be a relevant consideration specially in less serious offence involving lesser punishment. The fact that the State is not keen about cancellation of bail, granted to an accused person may be a relevant consideration specially in less serious offence involving lesser punishment. But the application of an informant or an injured or even a witness for cancellation of bail cannot be thrown out merely on the ground of lack of locus standi. ( 4 ) PERUSAL of the F. I. R. and the Case Diary indicates a lack of application of mind on the part of the police as well as the Magistrate. The F. I. R. itself discloses that the case had been registered against four known persons and another unknown person. The allegation discloses that five persons were involved. Keeping in view the nature of allegations in the F. I. R. that the culprits used force and snatched away money after assaulting the informant, prima facie commission of an offence under section 395, I. P. C. is made out. For the reasons best known to the police the case was registered under Section 379 I. P. C. The Magistrate seems to have mechanically acted upon the sections indicated in the F. I. R. by the police, and promptly proceeded to release the accused persons on bail without bothering to find out the real nature of allegations. It is the duty of a Magistrate even at the stage of considering the question of bail to apply judicial mind to find out prima facie the nature of offence alleged to have been committed. Mere registration of a case under a particular section does not preclude the Magistrate from delving into the matter to find out about the real offence. Of course, endeavour at that stage is to find out a prima facie case and not to come to any definite conclusion. Under section 437, Cr. P. C. , while considering the question of bail the Magistrate is to find out about the offence alleged to have been committed. If it is prima facie found that an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been committed the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release the accused on bail. If on the other hand, it is found that though a case has been registered under section punishable with death or life imprisonment. If there is no material to support of such allegation, the Magistrate has power to consider the question of bail. If on the other hand, it is found that though a case has been registered under section punishable with death or life imprisonment. If there is no material to support of such allegation, the Magistrate has power to consider the question of bail. The mere registration of a case under a particular section by the police is not the end of the matter. Sometimes, either due to ignorance or for some other reason or even for some ulterior purpose the police may register a case apparently under some very serious sections or even less-serious sections. The opinion of the police regarding the nature of offence committed is not conclusive even at the stage of consideration of bail and it is the duty of the Magistrate to find out about the real nature of offence. ( 5 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the prima facie view that the alleged offence should have been registered under section 395. I. P. C. as the allegations prima facie disclose commission of an offence under the said section. If the Magistrate would have applied his judicial mind possibly he would have come to the aforesaid conclusion. Since I am of the prima facie opinion that the offence should have been registered under section 395. I. P. C. there is no doubt that the order directing the release of accused persons on bail was illegal and without jurisdiction keeping in view the materials on record and the embargo imposed under section 437. Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid conclusion, in ordinary course the order granting bail in favour of the opposite parties should have been cancelled. However, in the present case. I find that there is no allegation that the accused persons after being released on bail have abused their liberty in any manner. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has fairly submitted that there is no allegation that after the accused persons were released on bail they have in any way tried to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Since the accused persons have been enlarged on bail and are enjoying their liberty for about five months and there is no allegations that they have abused their liberty in any manner. Since the accused persons have been enlarged on bail and are enjoying their liberty for about five months and there is no allegations that they have abused their liberty in any manner. I decline to cancel the bail already granted even though I am of the opinion that the order of Magistrate granting bail was illegal. It is however made clear that it would be open to the State/informant to seek for cancellation of bail in future if the subsequent events so warrant. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. Cr1. Misc. Case disposed of.