MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) THIS order governs the disposal of application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Jai Raj Singh seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 1 Yogesh Sharma vide order dated 22.12.2008 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur which pertains to F.I.R. No. 164/08 of Police Station Jalupura District Jaipur in the offences under Sections 381, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant provisions of law as also relevant material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent Yogesh Sharma by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur and it may adversely affect the progress of the investigation of the case. The comparison of specimen signature is got to be done and the specimen signature cannot be taken by the police unless his bail is cancelled. Learned counsel has further contended that the learned trial court has granted anticipatory bail in a mechanical manner and the material evidence on record has not been taken into consideration. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has simply submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not assigned any cogent reason seeking cancellation of bail. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is just and proper, which calls for no inference. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. Sanjay Gandhi (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 961) has held that rejection of bail when 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. 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 allow the trial. 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. As has already been discussed that unless there are any acts of the respondent Yogesh Sharma which tends to prejudice or jeopardize the course of justice, there will not be any necessity to approach the High Court for cancellation of bail. The opposition of the petition by the learned Public Prosecutor itself indicates that the State is not interested in cancellation of bail. Hence, in my firm view, the application of the petitioner is found to be devoid of force and substance and the same deserves to be dismissed and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 439(2) seeking cancellation of bail stands dismissed accordingly." ;