1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANC. APPLICATION NO. 2902/2009 Smt. Uganti vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date : 16.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. S.N. Meena, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Harendra Sing, for the respondents. This order governs the disposal of an application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Smt. Uganti seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent No. 2 to 4 who has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 9th April, 2009 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 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 that the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur should not have granted anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in such an offence of grave nature like that of Section 308 of IPC. The learned court below abused the powers, hence, the bail granted to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 deserves to be cancelled. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also learned counsel for the 2 respondents, in contra, submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur having perused the relevant material available on record, found that the offence under Section 308 of IPC was not made out and he accordingly discharged them. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, sent the case back under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur for trial. That court found that only the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 325 were only made out. All these offences are bailable. In any bailable offence, the accused has got an absolute and indefeasible right to get the bail. Learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, thus, has committed no illegality in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents and 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. The only crucial question springing for consideration in the instant case is that as to whether the petitioner has assigned any cogent and tenable ground to cancel the bail already granted to the respondent nos. 2 to 4? It is now very 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 his 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 petitioner, tried to hide himself or hampered the investigation or the trial of the case, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 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 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 4 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 lower 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 lower court. 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 has been granted on untenable grounds 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 temper 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. 5 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 strong 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/- 5