JUDGMENT : 1. The applicant, by present Criminal Misc. Application for cancellation of bail filed u/s 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenges order dated 11.6.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.346 of 2013 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gandhidham – Kutch, whereby the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were granted bail in connection with the offences registered before the Adipur Police Station being I – C.R. No.118 of 2013 for the offences punishable u/s 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard the submissions of learned advocate Mr. Popat for the petitioner, learned APP Ms. Jhaveri and learned advocate Mr. Trivedi for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The gist of the complaint alleged against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and other accused persons is such that soon before the death of the daughter of the applicant – original complainant, she was meted out with torture and illtreatment and therefore, the complainant's daughter committed suicide during her stay with her husband. The complainant lodged such FIR on 22.5.2013 alleging that due to the torture at the hands of the respondent accused Nos.2 and 3, his daughter was instigated to commit suicide. In this case, learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the papers and after hearing the submissions of both the sides, released the respondent accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail by suitable terms and conditions. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Popat appearing for the petitioner complainant made a grievance that learned Addl. Sessions Judge has passed unreasoned order and has further committed error in converting the proceedings from the proceeding of section 438 of the Code to the proceeding filed under section 439 of the Code and exercised its power to release the respondent accused Nos.2 and 3 on regular bail. 5. I have minutely examined the impugned order and more particularly, the reasons assigned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in para Nos.5 to 7. On perusal of the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment and more particularly, the aforementioned paras, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for granting regular bail to the respondent accused Nos.2 and 3 female accused persons. It is specifically observed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that both the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Ahmedabad and Deesa respectively. Sessions Judge has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for granting regular bail to the respondent accused Nos.2 and 3 female accused persons. It is specifically observed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that both the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Ahmedabad and Deesa respectively. It seems that in the matter of expenses, quarrel took place, which resulted into incident in question. 6. It appears that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 applied for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code, but before the said application is heard and disposed of, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 came to be arrested and therefore, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 prayed before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to consider their application as filed under section 439 of the Code as arguments were already concluded in the application filed under section 438 of the Code. Accordingly, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge converted the application from section 438 to section 439 of the Code and released the respondent accused Nos.2 and 3 on regular bail. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Popat for the applicant vehemently objected such conversion on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to convert the application from section 438 to section 439 of the Code. It requires to be noted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is competent to decide application filed either under section 438 or section 439 of the Code. Therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality considering the application filed under section 438 of the Code as that of filed under section 439 of the Code, because before order is pronounced, the applicants came to be arrested and therefore, no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order has been committed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 8. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Criminal Misc. Application and the same stands rejected. Rule is discharged.