JUDGMENT 1. - For causing injuries, including with a fire-arm on the hand and head of Brijendra Singh, Prosecution witness by one of the members of the alleged. unlawful assembly stated to have been formed by the applicants with the said common object, Crime No. 102/96 Under sections 147,148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 Indian Penal Code was registered at police station Uchhan in District Bharatpur. During investigation of the case the investigating officer, the Chatarpal ASI, was of the opinion that the offence Under section, 307 Indian Penal Code, which was a non- bailable offence, was not committed in the case. He, therefore, admitted the applicants to bail Under section 436 Criminal Procedure Code The investigation was, however, transferred to the Circle officer and then to the Dy.S.R l/C. Both these officers, were of the opinion that the offence Under section 307 Indian Penal Code was as well committed, though the Board of Doctors constituted for determining the nature of the gun-shot injury on the head of the injured has opined that the said injury was simple in nature. The investigation officer therefore, moved the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Under section 439(2) Criminal Procedure Code to cancel the bail guaranteed to the applicants by sh. Chatarpal ASI Under section 436 Criminal Procedure Code By his impugned order the learned Sessions Judge accepted his prayer and cancelled the ball. Hence, this application Under section 397(1 )Criminal Procedure Code by the applicants. 2. Mr. N.A. Naqvi the learned counsel for the applicants vehemently urged that once bail had been granted to the applicants in the presents case and the nature of the gun- shot injury had remained the same, the learned Addl.- Sessions judge had no Jurisdiction to cancel the same Under section- 439(2) Criminal Procedure Code as no grounds to cancel the bail Under section 439 existed in the present case. Reliance in support of such argument was placed on supreme Court's decisions in Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 372 , Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) , Prabhu v. State & Anr., RCC 1988 (Nov.- Dec.)474 . 3. Reliance in support of such argument was placed on supreme Court's decisions in Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 372 , Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) , Prabhu v. State & Anr., RCC 1988 (Nov.- Dec.)474 . 3. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, pointed out that the present case was from the very beginning registered for a non-bailable offence(Under section 307 Indian Penal Code) punishable with imprisonment for life and there fore bail could not have been granted by the investigating officer Under section 436 Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Section 436 Criminal Procedure Code confers upon a person who is accused of having committed a bailable offence, a right to be releasable on bail. Section 437 Criminal Procedure Code does empower a Magistrate to grant bail in cases involving non bailable offence if such offence is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or the accused is not a previous convict for such an offence or offence punishable for seven years. Apart from the provisions contained in sub- section (5) of Section 437 Criminal Procedure Code relating to re-arrest or committal to custody of the person who has been released on bail either under sun-sec(1) or (2) of section 437, sub-sec. (2) of Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code confers specific power upon the high Court and the Court of Sessions to direct that any person who has been released on bail under chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 be arrested and committed to custody Bail in non-bailable cases cannot therefore be claimed as of a right. It is in the direction of the Magistrate, Sessions Judge or the High Court to grant or refuse to grant bail in non-bailable cases, no doubt such discretion has to be exercised judicially and I not arbitrarily. If bail has been granted in such cases, such grant of bail is always subject to the exercise of the power to re-arrest the accused, or commit him to custody, though such power has to be exercised on recognised lines and not arbitrarily. 5. If bail has been granted in such cases, such grant of bail is always subject to the exercise of the power to re-arrest the accused, or commit him to custody, though such power has to be exercised on recognised lines and not arbitrarily. 5. In the instant case it is an undisputed fact that the case was from the very beginning, registered for bailable as well as non-bailable offences, the commission of the non-bailable offence punishable Under section 307 Indian Penal Code was alleged to have resulted from the act of one of the members of the alleged unlawful assembly of causing injury to brijendra Singh with a fire-arm on hand and head. The injury caused on head was simple in nature. In the act of firing at Brijendra Singh with a fire-arm causing injury on his head the prosecution read an intention on the part of the assailant to attempt to cause death of the victim i.e. the commission of a non-bailable offence punishable Under section 307 Indian Penal Code. The defence, however, stressed upon the consequence of the act done and. therefore, read an offence of voluntarily causing simple hurt with a fire-arm which fell within the purview of section 324 only which is a bailable offence. Since the case stood already registered and being investigated for the offence which was non-bailable and punishable with life imprisonment the investigating officer had no power Under section 436 Criminal Procedure Code to grant bail to the applicants. But once the investigating officer had granted bail to the petitioner, though quite illegally and without any jurisdiction, the subsequent investigating officer could not have arrested the petitioner unless bail was cancelled Under section 439 (2) Criminal Procedure Code and that is what was done by the learned Addl. Session Judge. Since Chatarpal ASI, had granted bail to the petitioners Under section 436 Cr. PC. when the provision was not applicable to the case the learned Sessions Judge could have cancelled the bail so granted by Chatarpal. ASI, in a non bailable offence and for doing that the learned Sessions Judge was not required to find out whether the bail had been abused or misused by the petitioners. The impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge thus does not suffer from the vice of infirmity, invalidity or illegality. 6. The cases relied upon by Mr. ASI, in a non bailable offence and for doing that the learned Sessions Judge was not required to find out whether the bail had been abused or misused by the petitioners. The impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge thus does not suffer from the vice of infirmity, invalidity or illegality. 6. The cases relied upon by Mr. Naqvi deal with the grant of bails Under section 437 Criminal Procedure Code for non - bailable offences by courts having power and jurisdiction to grant bail in such cases. The power of a police officer to grant bail Under section 436 Criminal Procedure Code in a case involving the commission of non- bailable offences was not considered in those cases. The ratio-deci-den-di of those decisions is, therefore, not applicable in the present case. 7. In the result I find no fact in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed However, looking to the fact that certain ladies are also petitioners in this petition it is directed that the order of the learned Sessions Judge shall remain in abeyance for one month or till the petitioners appear before the competent court and apply for bail, whichever event happens earlier. In case the lady petitioners appear and apply for bail Under section 437 Criminal Procedure Code within the aforesaid period their prayer shall be considered, with reference to the first proviso to Section 437 (I) Criminal Procedure Code.Petition Dismissed. *******