JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra, J.—Smt. Kamla has moved this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite parties Tejpal, Mahipal, Bablu and Jharia by the Sessions Judge Bijnor in Crime No. 274 of 2008 under Section 308, 325, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nangal, District Bijnor vide order dated 9.11.2010. 2. In brief the allegations are that the F.I.R. was lodged against opposite party No. 1 to 4 and 2 others for the offence under Section 376, 323 I.P.C. which was registered at the police station Nangal at Crime No. 274 of 2008. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that on 16.8.2008 at about 12.00 O’clock in the noon complainant’s daughter in law Babita was cleaning the utensils whereas the complainant’s daughter Poonam was brooming the house. The accused Tejpal, Mahipal, Babloo, Sompal, Jharia and Sonu entered the house of the complainant. Accused Mahipal and Babloo caught hold of Smt. Babita and the accused Tejpal committed rape with her. The complainant’s daughter Poonam was caught by the accused Sonu and Sompal whereupon the rape was committed by Jharia upon Smt. Poonam. It was also alleged that in this incident the daughter and daughter in law of the complainant sustained injury and the incident was witnessed by her. 3. The case was investigated and after collecting evidence the Investigating Officer converted the case only to Section 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. However, after seeking the x-ray report the charge-sheet was submitted against the opposite parties for the offence under Section 308, 325, 324, 323 I.P.C. 4. It is an admitted case that after the conversion of the case to Section 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 were granted bail and when the charge-sheet was submitted also for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. they again applied for bail in that Section and were enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 9.11.2010 which order is under challenge in this application. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 as well as the learned A.G.A. and I have also gone through the papers filed with the application. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 as well as the learned A.G.A. and I have also gone through the papers filed with the application. The learned counsel for the applicant Smt. Kamla argued that in this incident, the complainant’s daughter in law Smt. Babita had sustained two injuries, one was a contusion on the right thigh, whereas the other injury was the complaint of pain on the left thigh. In the same incident the complainant Smt. Kamla also sustained as many as 15 injuries on different parts of the body and in the x-ray report 10th and 11th ribs on the right side were found fractured. Again Smt. Poonam, the daughter of the complainant also sustained as many as 5 injuries and in the x-ray report fracture of ulna bone was found. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that inspite of so much injuries the learned Sessions Judge allowed the bail to the opposite parties and did not consider this fact that a clear cut case of attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder had been made out. It was also argued that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered the injuries sustained by three persons on the prosecution side and after noting the severity of the injuries should have rejected the bail of the opposite parties. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 4 on the other hand argued that the sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order as the learned Judge has categorically considered this aspect that initially the F.I.R. was lodged for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. but that offence was not found to have been committed and only the offences under Section 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. were found for which the bail was granted by the Magistrate. The learned Judge further found that in few of the injuries bones were fractured but the general condition of the injured was not found to be poor. It was also observed by the sessions Judge that the accused opposite parties did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to them earlier. 8. I considered over the respective arguments. The learned Judge further found that in few of the injuries bones were fractured but the general condition of the injured was not found to be poor. It was also observed by the sessions Judge that the accused opposite parties did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to them earlier. 8. I considered over the respective arguments. The Sessions Judge under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is empowered to release the accused on bail for the offence including one under Section 308 I.P.C. This is not the case of the applicant or the prosecution that after being released on bail, the accused persons have misused the liberty so granted. The matter relating to cancellation of bail has been considered by the different High Courts as well as by the Apex Court and it has been held that the bail may be cancelled on any of the following grounds : 1. Where the person on bail, during the period of bail, commits the very same offence for which he is being tried or has been convicted; 2. if he hampers the investigation; 3. if he tampers with the evidence; 4. if he runs away to a foreign country, or goes underground or beyond the control of his sureties; 5. if he commits Acts of violence in revenge; and 6. if the order granting bail is without jurisdiction. In the present case none of the above conditions is available and as such no ground for cancellation of bail is made out. 9. It will not be out of place to mention here that in the F.I.R. there was no allegation that the accused persons had also beaten the complainant Smt. Kamla. It is, therefore, difficult to understand as to how Smt. Kamla sustained as many as 15 injuries. Moreover, the incident allegedly took place on 16.8.2008 at 12.00 O’clock in the noon and Smt. Kamla was examined on 17.8.2008 at 00.35 A.M. The duration of injuries was about 6 to 8 hours old. Thus a doubt is raised as to whether the injuries allegedly sustained by Smt. Kamla were inflicted in the same incident as has been alleged in the F.I.R. In view of the entire above discussions, I am satisfied that no case for cancellation of bail is made out. The application is accordingly rejected. —————