Judgment Uday Sinha, J. 1. -this is an application by the State for cancellation of the Provisional Bail granted to the opposite-party by this Court by order dated 13-6-1978 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1735 of 1978. The Application has been pressed on various grounds. 2. The opposite-party is in judicial custody as an accused in Arrah Town p. S. Case No.13 (12) 77 under sections 302/34 and 307 of the Indian Penal code and section 27 of the Arms Act He has now been committed to the court of Sessions to take his trial. The allegation against him, in short, is that he along with others fired and killed with pistol one Jitendra Choudhary, who was going on a Rickshaw in Arrah Town. After he had been taken into custody, prayer for release on bail was made on his behalf but it was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 2 2-1978. After a few months he again moved Sessions judge, Arrah, for being released on bail on compassionate ground that he required specialised treatment at Delhi or Vellore. The Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for being released on Bail, but directed the State to make arrangement for shifting the opposite-party to All India Institute of Medical Science at delhi. While the arrangements were being made by the State Government to take him to Delhi by train, he filed an application that he should be taken to delhi by Air or by Road on ambulance. The learned Sessions Judge passed order on that Application on 23-5-1978. He did not pass any specific orders as to the mode of transport, but only cautioned the State Government to take due care for health and life of the opposite-party. On 136.1978 the oppositeparty moved this Court for being released on bail. S. S. Hasan, J. did not accede to the request for open bail but granted only provisional bail for five months. Shortly thereafter, the opposite-party was arrested in another case at Patna. On 25-7-1978 the State filed the present Application for cancellation of the provisional Bail granted to the opposite party. 3. The grounds urged on behalf of the State for cancellation of the Bail granted to the Opposite Party are firstly that order for Bail was obtained on the basis of his physical infirmity which was not true and secondly he had abused the privilege granted to him. 3. The grounds urged on behalf of the State for cancellation of the Bail granted to the Opposite Party are firstly that order for Bail was obtained on the basis of his physical infirmity which was not true and secondly he had abused the privilege granted to him. The abuse of privilege alleged against the oppositeparty is of three categories, namely (a) the opposite-party never went to Delhi for medical treatment and was seen collecting tolls forceably with arms in Arrah town (b) he threatened Premlata Choudhary, a sister of the deceased that her entire family would be shot and killed if she deposed against the accused and (c) that he was seen moving about it in the town of Patna with other armed desperados. He was arrested in that connection by the Police and is accused in a case under sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the Parties, I am of the view that sufficient ground has been made out for cancellation of the Bail granted to the opposite party. The case made out that the opposite-party was suffering from heart disease which required replacement of the valve does not appear to be true. Although seven months have expired from the day Dr. Modi of Patna Medical college gave the certificate that the accused required immediate hospitalisation for replacement of his /alve, the opposite-party is still hale and hearty. In fact, it is obvious from the record that after getting out of Jail no serious step has been taken for replacement of valve.1 am satisfied that provisional Bail was obtained on misrepresentation of facts. The prescription given by Dr. R. K. Modi, to the opposite-party have been shown to me. I have grave doubt about the correctness of the conclusions of Dr. Modi. In my view, the certificates were obtained by the opposite-party only for the purpose of obtaining Bail from the Court. The conduct of Dr. Modi should be a matter of concern for the State Government. It should bu a matter for serious consideration by the State Government to enquire into the circumstances in which Dr. R. K. Modi of Patna Medical College gave certificate in regard to the serious condition of the health of the opposite-party. 5. The conduct of Dr. Modi should be a matter of concern for the State Government. It should bu a matter for serious consideration by the State Government to enquire into the circumstances in which Dr. R. K. Modi of Patna Medical College gave certificate in regard to the serious condition of the health of the opposite-party. 5. In regard to the allegation that he was seen moving about with arms in the town of Arrah collecting tolls forcibly from shop-keepers, it is difficult to put any value upon that allegation for there is not much to support it. A more serious ground, however, is the fact that he was seen in the company of other criminals at 8 in the morning and the accused committed an offence under section 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code in Kotwali P. S. Case No.35 (9)-78. He was seen at Patna on 8-9-1978. It is not disputed by the opposite-party that a gun was recovered from his possession. Nor is it disputed that he held no licence for it. His plea that the gun belonged to his brother a constable who was also with him does not appear to be true. If his brother was also with him, he would also have been arrested. The plea that his brother had gone to answer call of nature when he was arrested while he was holding the gun for his brother appears to be a built up story. I have no manner of doubt that the opposite-party was out on some nefarious errand. This was certainly an abuse of the privilege. There was another person with him of the name of Ram chandra Singh with an unlicensed rifle. At the time of arrest that person had a loaded rifle with extra cartridges. 6. I am also inclined to believe the allegation of the State that the opposite party had threatened the witness, Premlata Choudhary. A copy of the sanaha recorded on her statement on 28-6-1978 has been annexed as Annexure 3 to this Application. Considering the antecedents of the opposite-party, I am inclined to believe that the allegations mentioned in that Sanha are most probably true. Charge-sheets have been submitted against the opposite-party in the following cases :- " (1) S. Tr. No.214/77 under sections 399 and 402 I. P. C. (2) S. Tr. Considering the antecedents of the opposite-party, I am inclined to believe that the allegations mentioned in that Sanha are most probably true. Charge-sheets have been submitted against the opposite-party in the following cases :- " (1) S. Tr. No.214/77 under sections 399 and 402 I. P. C. (2) S. Tr. No.319/77 under sections 396 and 411 I. P. C. (3) Arrah Town P. S. Case No.2 (I)/76 under section 307 I. P. C. (4) Arrah Town P. S. Case No.9 (H)/76 under sections 307 and 279/337 i P. C. /complaint Case No.1021/77. (5) S. Tr. No.374/76 under sections 25 and 27 Arms Act and section 307 I. P. C. (6) S. Tr. No.9/77 under sections 307, 452 I. P. C. and section 27 arms Act. (7) S. Tr. No.34/77 under sections 399 and 402 I. P. C. (8) S. Tr. No.60/77 under sections 399 and 402 I. P. C. (9) S. Tr. No.79/77 under sections 302, 147 and 402 I. P. C. (10) S. Tr. No.91/77 under sections 307 and 392 I. P. C. (11) Committed to the Court of Sessions in Arrah Town P. S. Case No.13 (12)/75 under section 307 I. P. C. and section 25 Aims Act. The tally of the cases mentioned above show unmistakably that the opposite-party has quite an impressive criminal record of crimes alleged to have been committed by him. The assertion of the first informant in paragraph 3 of his affidavit that the opposite-party is anotorious criminal of Bhojpur District does not appear to be a hyperbole. In fact he has been made an accused in arrah Town P. S. Case No.15 (7)/78 in the month of July, 1978 under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code even while he was on provisional Bail granted by this Court. 7 Having given may most anxious consideration to the submissions, the affidavits and the counter-affidavits, I have not the least doubt that the opposite-party does not deserve to remain on Bail. The Application is, therefore, allowed, and the Bail granted to the opposite-party by this Court on 13-6-1978 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1735 of 1978 is hereby cancelled. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the State Government for taking any action which it considers appropriate against Dr. The Application is, therefore, allowed, and the Bail granted to the opposite-party by this Court on 13-6-1978 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1735 of 1978 is hereby cancelled. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the State Government for taking any action which it considers appropriate against Dr. R. K. Modi in making a recommendation that the opposite-party required immediate hospitalisation either at All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi of at Vellore for valve replacement of the heart. Application allowed.