B. R. ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition under Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. for cancellation of the bail is directed against the order dated March 9, 1992, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, by which the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to accused-respondent Nathu Ram.
(2.) SMT. Santosh, on February 8,1992, filed a complaint against accused-respondent Nathu Ram in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner. It was averred in the complaint that she was married to Nathu Ram on January 14, 1992, in Bikaner and out of the wed lock one daughter was born from to loin of accused-respondent Nathu Ram, who is aged about seven years. Her father gave sufficient dowry the details of which has been given in the complaint. Her in-laws members turned her out from the house on the pretext that she had not brought sufficient amount in dowry. The panchayat was held, but the accused refused to return the articles given to her by her parents as dowry. The accused, also, refused to take the petitioner back to their house. Apprehending his arrest, the accused Nathu Ram moved a bail application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. before learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, who, by his order dated March 9, 1992, allowed the bail application under Section 438 Cr. P. C, filed by the accused-respondent Nathu Ram. It is against this order that the present application for can:eilation of bail, granted to the accused-respondent Nathu Singh, has been filed by the petitioner. The cancellation of the bail has been sought only on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge did not properly consider the broad aspects of the case and the cruelty and torture meted out to her and the Istridhan of the petitioner, which was lying with the accused, was, also, not delivered to her by the accused. After perusal of the order, passed by the learned lower Court, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has properly considered the facts and circumstances involved in the case and rightly granted bail to the accused-respondent. The cancellation of the bail has not been sought-out on the ground that the accused is trying to tamper with the evidence or is otherwise misusing the liberty granted to him. Different consideration prevails with the Court in granting and cancelling the bail. While at the time of granting the bail, the Court has to take into account the nature of the crime, the nature of the charges, the evidence and the possibility of interference with the Court of justice, antecedents of the accused, furtherance of interest of justice and socio-geographical circumstances whereas while considering the application for cancellation of bail, the Court has to see : whether after the grant of the bail, the accused has, in any way, misused the liberty granted to him. The object of Sub-section (2) of Section 439 Cr. P. C. is not punitive but to protect the interest of justice and to prevent it from being tempered with in any manner by the accused. The bail granted to an accused can be cancelled if the accused, after his release on bail, tries to tamper with the evidence or hampers with the trial or investigation, commits an act of violence or commits the same offence again. The power vested with the Court for cancellation of the bail, is to be exercised with care and circumspection. In the present case, after perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the learned lower Court in granting the bail to the accused, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be, in any way, improper. When the discretion exercised by the learned lower Court in granting the bail to the accused is not improper, the bail granted to the accused should not be cancelled. Unless there are strong and compelling circumstances, the High Court is not expected to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail. In the result, I do not find any merit in this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, and the same is hereby dismissed. .;