ORDER Bennet, J.
1. This is an application on behalf of the Local Government for cancellation of two orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Jaunpur granting bail to two persons Badri and Sardar Jahan who have been committed to stand their trial before him under Sections 120-B/457, I.P.C. I shall first examine the order for bail in the case of Badri which was passed by the Sessions Judge on 9th August 1933. The matter of bail of Badri had came before this Court, and a learned Judge of this Court had passed an order on 7th March 1933. In that order he had considered the merits of the question and he had set aside the previous order of the Sessions Judge granting bail to Badri and two others. The learned Judge of this Court satisfied himself that there was a cons-piracy and a common fund behind the conspiracy and specific instances of intimidation of witnesses and tampering with witnesses by some of the accused in the conspiracy case. After the order of this Court Badri made an application to the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge quoted as applying to Badri another order of this Court and he did not quote it accurately. He appeared to consider that this other order gave him some authority to reconsider the question of bail. Without giving notice to the Government Pleader or making any reference to this Court the Sessions Judge proceeded to grant bail to Badri. No new case for granting bail appears to have arisen between the order of this Court on 7th March 1933 and the order of the Sessions Judge on 9th August 1933. I have heard Badri who has made a representation on his own behalf and who has been brought here from Jaunpur for the purpose. I consider that no ground has been shown why the order of this Court of 7th March 1933 should be altered, and I consider that there is no authority which authorises a Sessions Judge to reverse an order of this Court in regard to the granting of bail to a particular person before him on trial. For these reasons I grant the application of the Crown in regard to Badri. I now take up the case of Sardar Jahan. The order of this Court was passed on 5th March 1933. In this order there was a passage as follows:
It is not it-he case therefore that the applicants will be confined in jail for a very lengthy period before they are either charged or discharged. In the event of the inquiry being unduly prolonged it will be open to them to make another application and the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge will be able to deal with it after considering the state of the evidence against them, but at the present stage I do not feel justified in allowing their release. The application is therefore rejected.
2. The learned Sessions Judge has interpreted this passage as allowing him to reconsider the question of granting bail to Sardar Jahan. It is not easy to see how he could have mistaken the plain English words in this passage. The learned Judge of this Court states that it is in the event of the enquiry being unduly prolonged that it will be open to the Sessions Judge to deal with another application. Now the enquiry terminated on 2nd June 1933, when the Magistrate committed the case to Sessions. There could therefore be no question of the enquiry being unduly prolonged on 20th July 1933. The Sessions Judge had no justification whatever for reopening this matter. learned Counsel for the accused Sardar Jahan has not produced any ruling which indicates that after this Court has passed orders on the subject of bail for an accused person it is open to the Sessions Judge to reconsider the matter, unless he is specially authorised to do so by the order. There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code which indicates that a Sessions Court has this power. The Sessions Court in the order of 20th July 1933, comes to the conclusion that this accused Sardar Jahan took the part of assistant to his brother Sikandar Jahan who was the leader of the gang. Such a reason would be no reason for admission to bail. Another ground put forward is that one of the two brothers should be given an opportunity to arrange for the defence and for funds. I do not consider that this is a sufficient reason in a case like the present where this Court has held that the release of accused persons on bail has led to tampering with the witnesses for the prosecution. For these reasons I allow the application of the Crown also in regard to Sardar Jahan.
3. I therefore set aside the two orders of the Sessions Judge of 7th March 1933, granting bail to Badri, and of 20th July 1933, granting bail to Sardar Jahan. Badri has not been released and he will continue in jail. Orders should issue for the arrest of Sardar Jahan and for his confinement in jail pending the disposal of the trial.