M. Cr. C. No.5055/10 22.11.2011 It appears that the opposite party No.2 has retired as a Professor and Dean of the Commerce Faculty of Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya. He accused of being in charge of a Co- operative Housing Society, which is alleged to have committed some irregularities in allotment of plots. The offence alleged is under Section 420/120-B of I.P.C. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the oder of the Court below refusing to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No. 2 in respect of the said offence under section 420/120-B IPC. The Court below has held that the accused has not misused the privilege of bail and accused has not violated any condition of bail. It has also been held that while granting bail no material fact has been ignored. Therefore, the Court below refused to cancel the bail of the opposite party No.2. The following three decisions have been cited by the learned counsel for the applicant: 1973 CRI. L. J. 1876 (Joaquim Mann. Vs. State), 2001 CRI L. J. 2647 (Smt. Sharda Vs. State of Rajasthan and another), 2004 CRI. L. J. 1995 (State of Kerala Vs. K. R. Suraj). It is alleged (i) that firstly the bail had been obtained by alleging wrong facts, namely, that the accused did not have any connection with the Navlakha Sharmik Awas Gruh Nirman Sanstha, and also alleging (ii) secondly some important aspects have not been examined while granting bail, and (iii) thirdly subsequently another criminal case of the same nature has been registered against the applicant. It has been submitted that each of the three grounds are covered by one of the three decisions referred above. The decisions are of the Rajasthan, Kerela and Goa High Courts. Having examined these decisions, I am of the opinion that one vital aspect has been overlooked by the applicant namely that considering the nature of offence, including the factual backdrop referred above, it is obvious that after cancelling bail, the accused cannot be kept in detention indefinitely pending trial. Accordingly, this is not a fit case for exercise of the inherent powers of this Court to cancel the bail of the opposite party No.2. The M.Cr.C. is dismissed accordingly. (SUSHIL HARKAULI) Acting Chief Justice snb/-