IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18605 of 2011 MD. JAVED AKHTAR @ GUDDU & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 15.6.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petition appears not maintainable in the very face of the fact that the petitioners were admitted to bail by the police. The apprehension of the petitioners arises out of an order of cognizance passed by the C.J.M., Muzaffarpur in Brahmpura P.S. Case no. 96 of 2008 by which he took cognizance also of the offence under section 307 IPC. Mere taking of cognizance will not nullify the bail to which the petitioners were admitted by the police. It may be pointed out that bail granted by the police or the court has similar effect in law and unless the accused, who has been admitted to bail, has been given an opportunity of being heard, his bonds could never be cancelled. As such, there is no occasion for this court to pass any order on the prayer except to direct the petitioners to agitate the issue as and when they are issued a notice to show cause as to why their bonds are not cancelled. It is worth pointed out to the court below that cancelling of a bond could not be resorted to merely because a Presiding judge of the court wishes to do that. Before the court proceeds to cancel the bond of an accused, it must have compelling reasons for doing that. The reasons or grounds upon which bonds could be cancelled are too well known to be pointed 2 out. It has repeatedly been pointed out that if there is a chance of the accused absconding, if the accused is shown to have indulged in the same or more serious offence or if he is shown to have intimidated the witnesses or tampered with the evidence or if his being at large will be dangerous not only for the society but for him also, then in these cases, the bonds of the accused could be cancelled, else not. The above position of law was not required to be pointed out but, so that the case of the petitioners is not prejudiced on account of filing of anticipatory bail petition before the Sessions Judge or before this Court, this Court has reiterated the position of law for the guidance of the lower court. The petition stands dismissed in view of the observations made above. Let this order be communicated to the court of C.J.M., Muzaffarpur through FAX in case the cost is deposited by the petitioners. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)