- (1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Opp. NO.2 (Dr. Arun Kumar Burnwal) was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 22.8.2007 after taking into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of the Opp. Party No. 2 that the criminal case is an outcome of a civil dispute, which the parties fought out, but the Court, at the same time failed in taking into consideration that there had been allegation, constituting an offence under Section 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and in that view of the matter, anticipatory bail was itself not maintainable and, hence anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner is fit to be cancelled.
(2.) BEFORE coming to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, I may just indicate about the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, upon which one can seek for cancellation of bail. In this respect, I may refer to a case of Bhagirath Sinh Judeja vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1984 S.C. 372) where Their Lordships have held: - "The High Court completely overlooked the fact that it was not for it to decide whether the bail should be granted but the application before it was for cancellation of the bail. Very cogent and over -wheming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail and the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether is he also likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with the evidence".
(3.) IN this respect, case of Delhi Administration vs. Sanjay Gandhi (AIR 1978 S.C. 961) also needs to be referred to where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : - "Section 439(2) of the Criminal P.C. confers jurisdiction on the High Court or Court of Session to direct that any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII be arrested and committed to custody. The power to take back in custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. But the power, though of an extraordinary nature, is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases when, by a preponderance of probabilities it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with the witnesses".;