THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2684 OF 2011 ORDER: This petition is filed by the de facto complainant to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, on 20.01.2011 to respondents Nos.1 and 2, who are A.3 and A.4 in Crime No.152 of 2010 of Satyanarayanapuram (Law and Order) Police Station, Vijayawada. 2. On the complaint of the petitioner herein, who is said to be a practising Advocate at Vijayawada, having long standing, with regard to large scale misappropriation and fraud of public and collecting huge monies by a group of companies and respondents Nos.1 and 2 are also said to be associated with those companies, the crime was registered. During the course of investigation, the prime accused i.e., A.1 and A.2 were said to have been arrested and they were in custody for more than 60 days and as the investigation could not be completed they are said to have been released. Respondents Nos.1 and 2, who are A.3 and A.4, moved the anticipatory bail application and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, taking into consideration that A.3 is a lady and A.4 is said to be a student granted the anticipatory bail. For cancellation of the same, the present petition is filed. 3. The point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada? 4. POINT: The thrust of the argument of Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and also the Public Prosecutor is that earlier this Court has dismissed two applications for grant of anticipatory bail and that being so, when the High Court has declined to entertain the anticipatory bail, it is not proper on the Sessions Judge to entertain the anticipatory bail application and granting the same by itself is illegal. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: 1) Ajayaraj Vs. State of Kerala[1] 2) Smt. Bimla Devi Vs. State of Bihar and others[2] 5. The question is propriety of granting of bail is quite different from consideration of reasons for cancellation of the bail. It may be true that granting of the bail in spite of the dismissal by the High Court may not be prudent on the part of the Sessions Judge to exercise the discretion. But, however, that itself is not a ground for cancellation of the bail. In order to bring an application for cancellation of bail, all the requirements under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code have to be satisfied. It should be shown that the accused are likely to abscond or that they are likely to tamper with the evidence or that they are likely to conceal the property, which is involved in the case. In fact, none of the above factors have been highlighted either in the counter filed by the Investigating Officer or in the application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the bail. The fact remains that the prime accused A.1 and A.2 were said to have been detained for 60 days in judicial custody and the investigating agency claims that no progress could not be done and evidently as material investigation, in spite of their custody, could not be completed, they were released under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. If such is the case one fails to understand as to how the wife of A.2, who is the 1st respondent herein and A.4, who is not associated with family is required for custodial investigation by the police. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, no sufficient grounds are made out for cancellation of the bail. Apart from it, the amount due to the present petitioner, who filed the cancellation of the bail, is already said to have been deposited and apart from it, out of 1,500 subscribers, who are said to have been cheated and money was collected, the claims of more than 1,300 persons are said to have been satisfied. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a case where intended or wanted to meddle with the investigation or defeat the process of investigation. In view of the above circumstances, there are absolutely no valid grounds to cancel the bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:08-12-2011 INL [1] 2010(3) Crimes 20 (Ker.) [2] 1994 Crl.L.J. 638