Crl.Misc.No.M-28985 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-28985 of 2008 Date of Decision: 2 - 3 - 2009 Virsa Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Ms.G.K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr.T.S.Sangha, Sr. Advocate with Mr.H.S.Sangha, Adocate for respondent No.2. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is aggrieved against the grant of anticipatory bail to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 was named as accused in case FIR No.50 dated 19.5.2008 registered at Police Station Mehta under Sections 326, 324, 323, 34 IPC. Medico legal report of Jugraj Singh had been placed on record. He had suffered injury No.3 on the middle of his left pinna. Although copy of the medico legal report of Jugraj Singh has been annexed as Annexure P- 7 but it has not been truly reproduced, therefore, a photo copy of the medico legal report of Jugraj Singh had been obtained from the counsel. It state that Crl.Misc.No.M-28985 of 2008 [2] part cartilage of ear is missing. In view of this, observations made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar were not called for. Therefore, it is ordered that anything said by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar while granting bail may not be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case at the time of trial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, though initially case for grant of bail was not made out, no interference is warranted, as it has been observed by the Courts that grant of bail is one thing and cancellation of bail is another. The Courts have been very hesitant to order the cancellation of bail. It has been held in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra 1993(1) Recent Criminal Reports 600 that orders of bail can only be cancelled if accused suborn the witnesses or make an attempt to flee from the Country. It has been held therein as under:- “...As stated in Raghubir Singh's case (1987 Cri LJ 157) the grounds for cancellation 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 or 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 scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, Crl.Misc.No.M-28985 of 2008 [3] (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.” Though grant of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar could not be appreciated but the allegations levelled regarding misuse of the concession of bail have not been fortified by any document, therefore, cancellation of bail is not called for. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 2, 2009. JUDGE RC