JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. seeks quashing of the order dated 5.11.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City in FIR No. 605/2003 Police Station Hindaun City, District Karauli for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 379 IPC, whereby the bail granted to the petitioner under Section 437 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 18.10.2003 has been cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the court below has recorded the finding on a complaint under Section 107, 116(3) and 151 Cr.PC. that the petitioner has threatened the brother of the prosecutrix and has thus abused the liberty of bail granted to him without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without there being any cogent and valid reason for the same and till this finding stands, the court below or the higher court would not grant him bail. He has, therefore, urged that the said finding be quashed as it is unjust, contrary to the provisions of law and ex-facie illegal. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor have on the strength of the case of Nemi Chand Gupta v. State & Others, 1991 RCC 580 raised a preliminary objection that this petition is riot maintainable and the petitioner ought to have approached the competent court for bail under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C. 4. I have perused the relevant documents placed before me, the impugned order as well as the authority cited at the bar. 5. It has been held in the case of "Nemi Chand Gupta" (supra) that the order refusing or cancelling bail cannot be revised in revision or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and if the bail has been cancelled illegally or unjustifiably the higher court has power to grant bail under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C.. So, this petition is not maintainable. This apart, it cannot be said that the court below had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order or it committed abuse of the process of Court by passing t.e impugned order or it is otherwise essential to interfere in the order for securing the ends of justice. It also cannot be said that the order impugned is ex-facie illegal or unwarranted. It also cannot be said that the order impugned is ex-facie illegal or unwarranted. So far as the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the same may be agitated before the competent court while moving for grant of bail to the petitioner. Thus, there is no cogent and valid ground to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of the inherent powers vested in this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which as per the settled principle of law in this behalf, are to be exercised very sparingly and in very exceptional circumstances and only for the purposes mentioned therein, which are not made out in the instant case. Hence, this petition deserves to be and is hereby rejected.Petition Dismissed. *******