JUDGMENT Shri Sharma submits that on 9.5.2003 learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna rejected the bail application in Crime No. 354/03 under sections 394, 427, 294, 308 and 506-B IPC. Thereafter, a second bail application was moved which was listed before the same Court on 31.5.2003 and the matter was adjourned as prayed for. The second bail application was listed before learned Sessions Judge on 2.6.2003 and it was adjourned on a prayer made by learned counsel for the accused. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 4.6.2003 when learned Additional Sessions Judge Chachoda, Guna granted the bail. Shri Sharma submits that grant of second bail application after a gap of 25 days by another Additional Sessions Judge appears to be improper and the same is contrary to decisions on the point. On the other hand Shri Solanki submits that there was change in circumstances. According to him when first bail application was rejected, challan was not filed. At the time of second application challan was put up and charges under section 308 and 397 were dropped, hence, learned Additional Sessions Judge thought it fit to grant bail. Shri Solanki also submits that the incident took place over demand of sandwiches in a hotel by the accused who are aged between 19-23 years. Shri Solanki also submits that this is their first offence and it is only a case of scuffle in a hotel and the accused have been wrongly framed up for serious offences. Shri Ahirwar, learned Additional Govt. Advocate submits that the complainant has not approached the Government to move an application for cancellation of bail and he has not received any instructions on this application. . On due consideration of rival submissions, I am of the view that the application under section 439(2) read with section 482 CrPC is devoid of merits. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail has exercised powers as conferred upon him under the provisions of CrPC. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge and Learned Sessnions Judge, Guna were not available to hear second bail application on the day of grant of bail. That apart, there was change in circumstances as two charges were dropped and challan has since been put up. Grant of bail has been questioned on ground of propriety. Judge of bail roster was not available " on that day. That apart, there was change in circumstances as two charges were dropped and challan has since been put up. Grant of bail has been questioned on ground of propriety. Judge of bail roster was not available " on that day. Hence, bail was granted by another Judge who was competent to do so, by reasoned order. Further, there is nothing on record to show that there was misuse of liberty after grant of bail or a condition of bail has been violated. Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. No. 2803/03, being devoid of merits, is hereby rejected.