1 ba407.11.sxw ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2011 Chandramohan Gopinath Dube. ..Applicant. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.H.Mishra for applicant. Mrs. P.P.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM:- M.N.GILANI, J DATED :- APRIL 1, 2011. P.C. 1. This is an application under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay at Mumbai in ABA Nos. 1534/10 and 1557/10. The complainant lodged a private complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra. The learned Court directed investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On that basis offence came to be registered. Learned APP on instruction states that investigation is still going on. 2. Apprehending their arrest, the Respondents nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 4 of 2010 under section 211,406,465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 I.P.C. moved anticipatory bail application. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the applicants and the State directed their release on their furnishing bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- each with one solvent surety in the like amount or cash deposit of Rs.5,000/- each in lieu of surety in the event of their arrest in the 2 ba407.11.sxw said crime. 3 The applicant is the original complainant who has approached this court for cancellation of anticipatory bail on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge erroneously exercised its discretion under section 439 Cr.P.C.. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. 4 In my view there is no justification to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge. According to the applicant offence was committed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the year 1999-2000. It is also his case that the respondents have also lodged criminal complaint against him. Consideration relevant for cancellation of bail are different from those relevant at the time of grant of bail. The settled law is: “Considerations relevant on a motion to cancel bail already granted are somewhat different from those relevant to the rejection of an application for bail. The reason is that cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can 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.” Investigation is still in progress. There are no allegation that the respondents have indulged in tampering with the witnesses or they are not co-operating with the Investigation. In view of this, no case is made out. The application is summarily rejected. (M.N.GILANI, J)