S.B. Cr. Misc. Cancellation of Bail No. 19/2006 Date of order : 05.07.2007 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. M.K.Garg for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State. By the instant application under Seciton 439 (2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner complainant seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2 Malkiat Singh vide order dated 17.6.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the injured suffered as many as three injuries but none of the injuries are on the vital part of the body. The injury No.1 is on the right forearm, the injury No.2 is crushed wound on the right hand dorsum and third injury is on right thigh multiple lacerated wound. From the perusal of the application as well as the material placed on record, it no where appears that after having granted the bail the accused respondent has misused it or made an attempt to tamper with any evidence. In Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 S.. 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- “The ground for cancellation of bail under Sections 437 (5) and 439 (2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Section 437 (1) or (2) or 439 (1) can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence of witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scare by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.” For the reasons aforesaid, in my view, it is not a fit case to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No.2 vide the order impugned. The application seeking cancellation of bail is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp