Judgment RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the material on record. ( 2 ) THIS is an application for cancellation of bail which was granted by the learned court below on 12th of September 2006. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the accused non-petitioner No. 2 was earlier filed before this court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 12th of July 2006. He further submits that despite of rejection of the bail application by this court, the learned Court below has granted bail application to the petitioner by the impugned order. This is only on the ground advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the accused respondent No. 2 has submitted that this court while dismissing the bail application of the accused non-petitioner on 12th July 2006, had observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file application before the court below after framing of the charge. He further submits that the charge in this case ordered to be framed by the Court below on 1st of September 2006, whereby the accused petitioners were charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 323/149, 304/149 I. P. C. and 3/30 of the Arms Act. ( 4 ) I have heard the submissions of the rival parties and perused the order impugned passed by the court below. A perusal of the said order reveals that the learned court below has taken into consideration the aforesaid liberty given by this court while dismissing the bail application of the accused non-petitioner, in para five of the impugned order. Further, the Court below has taken note of the fact that against the accused non-petitioner and his father the charge for the offences under Section 447 and 427 have not found to be prima facie made out. ( 5 ) LEARNED Court below has also considered the fact that there are cross cases against the complainant party, a criminal case for the offence under Sections 427, 447, 341, 336, 323 and 323/34, 325 and 325/34 i. P. C. are alleged against them. Learned court has also considered the fact that the accused petitioner was in jail since 24th of february 2006. Learned court has also considered the fact that the accused petitioner was in jail since 24th of february 2006. ( 6 ) IN the aforesaid facts and circumstances no illegality is found in the order passed by the Court below on 12th of September 2006. Moreover, neither there are allegations nor any submissions made on behalf of the petitioner complainant that the concession of bail granted to non-petitioner no. 2 since the month of September 2006 had been misused in any manner. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr. P. C is dismissed. .