IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36488 of 2011 Doman Sao son of late Ram Pratap Sao, Resident of village-Rauna, P.S.-Konch, District-Gaya. Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.Chhotelal @ Ranjeet, son of Tuntun Sao, Resident of village-Aranda, P.S.-Obra, District-Aurangabad. ----------- 2. 4.11.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State The petitioner prays for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party no.2 by order dated 8.7.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No.21688 of 2011 by this court. The ground taken for cancellation of bail is that opposite party no.2 has obtained anticipatory bail by suppressing material facts before the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing this petition, submits that after lodging of the present first information report opposite party no.2 tried to kidnap the petitioner for which a compliant case being Complaint Case No.332 of 2010 was filed on 6.4.2010 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. The allegation made in the said complaint dated 6.4.2010 which has been annexed as annexure 3/1 to this petition is that on 5.4.2010 when the complainant was coming back to his home at about 6.30 p.m. opposite party no.2 along with some others forcibly stopped him. They assaulted him and took out Rs.10,000/- from his pocket. On conclusion of enquiry, by order dated 13.9.2011 cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate, Ist Class, 2 Aurangabad of the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 385/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court below while taking cognizance of the offence has recorded that other allegations levelled by the petitioner in the complaint are all without any substance. It is relevant to note it here that the offence of which cognizance has been taken are all bailable in nature. It is further relevant to note it here is that allegation of suppression of fact relating to institution of Complaint Case No.332 of 2010 is thoroughly misconceived. It is a established law that an accused has got no locus in a case arising out of a complaint till cognizance is taken by the court. Apparently, the learned Magistrate, found the prima facie case to be made out against opposite party no.2 and others for which office was directed to issue summons against the accused persons on filing of requisition by the complainant fixing 29.11.2011 for their appearance. The bail sought to be cancelled was granted to opposite party no.2 by order dated 8.7.2011. Till then neither cognizance of the offence was taken nor summons was issued by the court. There was no occasion for opposite party no.2 to know about institution of the case prior to 13.9.2011. Thus, question of suppression of fact did not arise. I have also looked into the complaint lodged by the petitioner. The complainant has not stated any thing in the complaint as to why the occurrence of offence was not reported to the police. The court below has also found prima facie materials for the offence which are bailable in nature in an ex- parte enquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The law relating to cancellation of bail is by now well 3 established. Rejection of bail and cancellation of bail are to be considered on difference basis. The bail already granted can be cancelled on very cogent and over whelming situation. Broadly speaking, the grounds are (a) inference or attempt to infer due course of administration of justice, (b) Evasion or attempt to evade due course of justice, (c) Abuse of concession granted to the accused in any manner and (d) Possibility of the accused to abscond. In the present case, none of the aforesaid ground is available. I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, this petition seeking cancellation of bail of opposite party no.2 is hereby rejected. Md.S. ( Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)