JUDGMENT 1. - This is a second application by Mani Ram for cancellation of bail granted to Idan and Ram Pratap, non-petitioners, by this Court on 2-7-1975, in a criminal case under sections 302 and 302/149, IPC, in exercise of its powers under S. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The previous application for cancellation of bail filed by the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 5-9-1975 on the ground that the allegations made against Idan and Ram Pratap, non-petitioners, regarding the commission of acts of violence in revenge against the prosecution witnesses were not supported by properly verified affidavits of Chandu and Mani Ram. The grounds, on which cancellation of bail of the non-petitioners has been sought, are as follows (1) that Idan and Ram Pratap, non-petitioners, after being enlarged on bail committed offences punishable under sections 307, 147, 148, 149,1 P.C. alongwith three other persons and a criminal case was registered against them in respect thereof at Police Station, Lakhuwali, as is evident from the first information report filed by Mani Ram with the police on 14-10-1975 at 11 p.m. ; (2) that the police made a report to the Executive Magistrate against the non-petitioners that there is an apprehension of breach of the peace from their side and that proceedings under S. 107, Cr. P. C. may be initiated against them ; (3) that the non-petitioners have abused the concession of bail in the aforesaid manner so as to impede the fair trial of the murder case in which they were bailed out by this court on 2-7-1975, and unless they are recommitted to custody, no witness will come forward to give evidence against them out of fear of being severely dealt with by them in case he appeared as a witness against them in the murder case. 2. Notice of this application was given to the non-petitioners and the State of Rajasthan. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad appeared on behalf of the non-petitioners and hostel contested the application for cancellation of bail. Mr. H. N. Calla representing the State supported the move for cancellation of bail, while Mr. Bhim Raj, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 3. I have carefully gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. At the outset Mr. Mr. H. N. Calla representing the State supported the move for cancellation of bail, while Mr. Bhim Raj, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 3. I have carefully gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. At the outset Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, counsel for the non-petitioners raised a preliminary objection that this application for cancellation of bail made by a private party should not be entertained, because no prayer has been made on behalf of the State for cancellation of bail granted to the non-petitioners by this Court 011 2-7-1975. In support of his above contention, Mr. Bhagwati Prasad relied upon an authority of this Court Multan Mai v. Parbat Singh, 1951 R.L.W. 178 wherein his Lordship Bapna J. was pleased to observe that in the absence of any application for cancellation of bail from the side of the State in criminal cases, in which the State is the prosecutor, the private complainant had no locus standi to present such an application and that the contention of the learned Government Advocate that his verbal support to an application for cancellation of bail filed by a private party without instructions of the government, may be taken as a move by the Government for cancellation of bail, is untenable. Mr. Bhim Raj for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the power under S. 439, Cr. P. C. can be exercised by the High Court suo-moto and that all that the petitioner in this case has done is to draw the court's attention to the violent acts committed by the non petitioners after being enlarged on bail in revenge against the complainant and his party which disentitles them to remain on bail in the murder case. In this connection, Mr. Bhim Raj referred me to an authority of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Ranjit Singh v. Nand Lal, 1975 Criminal Law Journal (81) 1416 , wherein it was held that there is no bar that a private complainant cannot file an application for cancellation of bail under S. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. I have carefully gone through the referred to above authorities. In my opinion, a bare reading of S 439(2), Cr. 4. I have carefully gone through the referred to above authorities. In my opinion, a bare reading of S 439(2), Cr. P. C. 1973, reveals that the High Court and the Court of Session have been invested with powers to direct rearrest of an accused person who has been admitted to bail under sub-S. (1) of S. 439. Cr. P. C. This power should of course, be exercised on sound judicial principles and should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner. There is no limitation on the exercise of this power. There is nothing in S. 439(2). Cr. P. C. which creates a bar that an application under S. 439(2.', Cr. P. C. for cancellation of bail will not be entertained if made by a private complainant in a criminal case in which the State is the prosecutor. Consequently, the preliminary objection is overruled as it is devoid of force. 5. As regards the first ground for cancellation of bail, it may be observed that Mani Ram lodged a verbal first information report with the police at Police Station, Lakhuwali, about an incident of attempt to murder on 14-10-1975 at 11 p.m. It was alleged by him that on 14-10-1975 at 8-15 p.m Poosa Ram was sitting on a `Chokri' and smoking a `Hukka'. At that time Ram Pratap and Idan, non petitioners, accompanied by Bega Ram, Raji Ram and Battar Singh were seen in a lane at some distance from the `Chokri' having guns in their hands. At the sight of Poosa Ram they abused him in a filthy manner and began to fire shots from their guns at him. A shot from the gun passed by the side of Poosa Ram as a result of which he fell down from the `Chokri'. Poosa Ram was taken inside his house by Het Ram. The informant heard sound of gun fire at his house. After a short while Het Ram came to the house of Mani Ram informer and related the whole incident to the latter. Mani Ram thereupon rushed to the police to make a report that the non-petitioners and others had made an attempt to kill his uncle Poosa Ram, on account of old enmity. After a short while Het Ram came to the house of Mani Ram informer and related the whole incident to the latter. Mani Ram thereupon rushed to the police to make a report that the non-petitioners and others had made an attempt to kill his uncle Poosa Ram, on account of old enmity. On the basis of the said report the Station House Officer, Police Station, Lakhuwaii, registered a criminal case under sections 307, 147, 148, and 149, Indian Penal Code against the non-petitioners and made the usual investigation. It is alleged by the applicant in his application that a challan has been filed after usual investigation in the competent court of law. Mr. Bhim Raj appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the first information report and contended on its strength that the non-petitioners have misused the liberty granted to them by this Court by way of bail and have terrorised the uncle of Mani Ram complainant with a view to destroy or minimise the evidence that may be procured against them in the murder case. The above contention has no force. I am told that Poosa Ram is not an eye-witness of the prosecution in the murder case. There is no allegation against the non-petitioners that after they were bailed out in the murder case by this Court, they in any manner came into contact with the prosecution witnesses or exerted any undue pressure or influence on them for the purpose of dissuading them from giving evidence in court. At the request of the learned counsel for the non petitioners. investigation file of criminal case No. 144 of 1975, under Section 307, 147, 148 and 149. Indian Penal Code was called for and perused. From the file it does not appear that the police has challenged the non-petitioners for the aforesaid offences after completing the investigation. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners argued before me that despite the several shots alleged to have been filed from as many as five guns, not a single shot had hit Poosa Ram. From the file it does not appear that the police has challenged the non-petitioners for the aforesaid offences after completing the investigation. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners argued before me that despite the several shots alleged to have been filed from as many as five guns, not a single shot had hit Poosa Ram. According to him a false first information report was lodged with the police by Mani Ram, who is the complainant in the murder case against the non-petitioners in order to get their bail cancelled, because if five persons had fired shots from their guns at Poosa Ram from a short distance, the latter would have surely received gun shot injuries on his person and would not have escaped unhurt. 1 have considered the above contention. At this stage, it is not desirable for roe to express any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, which is pending investigation. Suffice it to say that bail of the non petitioners cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that a first information report about an assault on Poosa Ram, uncle of Mani Ram complainant had been lodged with the police. Mani Ram was admittedly not present at the time when the alleged occurrence took place. He was informed by Het Ram about the incident and the identity of the assailants. Het Ram has not put in his affidavit in support of the application for cancellation of bail as he was the person who claimed to have seen the non-petitioners committing the acts of violence. 6. As for the second ground, I may observed that the police made a report against the non-petitioners under S. 107, Cr. P. C. to the Executive Magistrate that there is an apprehension of breach of peace from the side of the two non-petitioners and that they may be bound down under S. 107, Cr. P. C. Upon this report notices under section 112, Cr. P. C, have been issued to the non-petitioners to show cause why they may not be called upon to furnish bail bonds in the amount of Rs. 2000, for keeping the peace for a period of one year. Mr. Bhim Raj has filed a certified copy of the order of the Executive Magistrate and the report of the police dated 10-10-1975. 2000, for keeping the peace for a period of one year. Mr. Bhim Raj has filed a certified copy of the order of the Executive Magistrate and the report of the police dated 10-10-1975. From a bare reading of the report of the police it appears that proceedings under S. 107. Cr P. C. were initiated against the non-petitioners on the basis of an application filed by Chandu Ram witness on 3-10-1975. The allegations in the application were that Idan and Ram Pratap non-petitioners ran after him and threatened him with dire consequences, if he would appear as a witness in the murder case against them. Chandu has not put in his affidavit in support of the application to show that in fact he was terrorised by the non-petitioners on 1-10-1975. In the absence of Chandu's affidavit or the affidavit of any eye-witness. 7. I do not feel inclined to cancel the bail granted to the non-petitioners, merely because Chandu presented an application before police that he was threatened with dire consequences by the two non-petitioners in case he appeared to give evidence against them in the murder case. 8. The third ground for cancellation of bail is not well-founded, because there is no material on the record to show that the two non-petitioners betrayed the trust reposed in them by this court and committed acts of violence in revenge against the witnesses cited by the prosecution in the murder case. The non-petitioners cannot be hampered for their defence merely on the ground that the complainant has made certain allegations that the non-petitioners will tamper with the evidence or terrorise the witnesses sought to be adduced in the murder case. 9. The application for cancellation of bail has, therefore, no force and is hereby rejected. *******