1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. 2 nd BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION NO. 355/2010 Kailash Chandra Yadav vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. Date of order: 26.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Harsh Saini, for the petitioner. Mr. Anoop Dhand, for the respondents. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of second bail cancellation application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Kailash Chandra Yadav seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent No. 1 Suresh Kumar and respondent No. 2 Sriram, who have been granted bail vide order dated 25th March, 2010 rendered by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant provisions of law as also relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has craved the cancellation of bail on the ground of misrepresentation of the facts before this Court by the learned counsel for the accused respondents at the time of arguing the bail 2 petition. On the basis of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused respondents, this Court recorded in the bail order dated 25.03.2009 that the investigation had been completed and the police report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. had been filed in the court, whereas the police report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed in the court on 11.07.2009. Similarly, the facts with regard to the use of weapon and its kind was misrepresented. There is every possibility that the accused may tamper the witnesses during trial, hence, the bail granted to the respondents deserves to be cancelled. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also learned counsel for the respondents have simply submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not assigned any cogent reason for cancellation of bail, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Now, it is well settled that the parameters of accepting the bail are altogether distinct from the parameters of cancelling the bail already granted. The respondents have not abused the liberty of bail. The petitioner has not quoted any instance to prove that the respondents tampered with or endeavoured to tamper with any witness, posed any threat to the 3 petitioner, tried to hide himself or hampered the investigation or the trial of the case, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. Sanjay Gandhi (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 961) has held that: “rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Dolatram and others Vs. State of Haryana (1995) (1) Supreme Court cases 349) that: “rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation 4 of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held in the case of Smt. Rajbala vs. State of Rajasthan (2005 (1) R.C.C. 289) as under:- “It is now well settled by a catena of cases of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations for grant of bail. The bail once granted cannot and ought not to be normally cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are cogent and overwhelming facts and circumstances on record to do so.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has simply argued that the Court has granted the bail on untenable grounds but has failed to explain as to what are those untenable grounds which were lost sight of by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the Court granted bail to the accused respondents on the basis of misrepresentation of facts but the facts which are said to have been misrepresented have no bearing with the merits of the bail order. The issue emerging in the petition is as to whether there are grounds available on record to cancel the bail granted to the respondents. Merely arguing that the bail 5 has been granted on misrepresentation of facts is not sufficient to cancel the bail. No such apprehension has been shown by the petitioner that the interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice has been made or the concession of bail granted to the respondents has been abused in any manner or the respondents are likely to abscond or they shall tamper with the witnesses. No such cogent or overwhelming circumstances have been put forth which are necessary for order directing the cancellation of bail, already granted. 10. Nowt has been brought to our notice either from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the respondents have in any manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during intervening period. I do not find any ground to cancel the bail already granted to the respondents. 11. For these reasons, the petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail being bereft of merits and devoid of substance stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- 8