JUDGMENT 1. - This application for cancellation of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant petitioner in respect of the bail granted to the non-petitioner Bhawani Shanker, by this court on 8-1-81 Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned counsel for the accused non-petitioner first raised a preliminary objection that no application for cancellation of bail can be filed by the complainant. It is argued that it is a case challaned by the police under section 307/34 IPC and only State is entitled to move an application for cancellation of bail. I see no force in this preliminary objection Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. reads as under . "A High Court or court of session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this chapter be arrested and commit him to custody." 2. There is no restriction in the above provision that such application is not maintainable by a complainant. It is a different matter as to under what circumstances and on what grounds such application should be allowed, but it cannot be held that no such application is maintainable at all no behalf of the complainant. I find support in my above view by a decision of this Court Jagram v. Ghamandi and others, 1980 RCC 364. The preliminary objection raised by Mr. Bhandari is, therefore, over-ruled. 3. it is contended by Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner complainant that the accused non-petitioner made a wrong averments in his application for the grant of bail that he was a regular student of 9th class in Government Higher Secondary School, Baran District Kota. In this regard a certificate of the Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Baran dated 3-2-81 has been filed by the complainant to show that the name of the school roll on 16-1-80, that is long before the filing of the bail application in this court. It is argued that this circumstance that the accused non-petitioner was a regular student lay heavily in the mind of the court as one of the factors for releasing the accused on bail on 8-1-81. It is also argued that the accused is a habitual offender. Number of criminal cases are pending against (he accused and even after his release from this court on 8-1-81, the accused did not stop his criminal activities. It is also argued that the accused is a habitual offender. Number of criminal cases are pending against (he accused and even after his release from this court on 8-1-81, the accused did not stop his criminal activities. In this regard the complainant has filed certain documents to show that cases have been registered against the accused for act committed by him on 27-1-81, 1-2-81, 8-2-81 and 9-2-81, In view of all these circumstances it is submitted that the accused has mis-used the liberty of bail granted in his favour and bail order should be cancelled and the accused be directed to be arrested. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the accused petitioner has contended that as regards the case lodged against the accused under sections 147, 148, 149, and 307 IPC, the accused has been acquitted on 6-2-81 vide judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kota, Annexure R/2. As regards the acts committed on 27-1-81, 1-2-81, 8-2-81 and 9-2-81, it is contended that the same have been lodged at the instance of the complainant a himself or by persons who were under his influence. In none of the cases any challan has been filed in the court and no notices have been given to the accused so far It is also argued that the Circle Inspector, Pratap Singh, is in collusion with the complainant and is bent upon arresting the accused by hook and crooke. It is also submitted that the accused was called in the police station on 20th March, 1981, and was given a beating by the Circle Inspector, without any rhyme or reason and an injury report has also been filed to substantiate this allegation. It is further argued that there is no allegation against the accused that the tampered with any prosecution witnesses or commit ed any act, which impeded the course of justice. The allegations levelled against the accused after his release on bail are totally false and in any case such actions attributed to the accused have no concern whats over with the trill of the present case It is argued that all the prosecution witnesses in this case are over and the statement of the accused has also been recorded on 31-3-81 and now the cate is fixed on 8-4-81 for defence evidence and final arguments in the case. A certified copy of order sheet dated 31-3-81 of the trial Court has been filed. In support of this contention, Mr. Bhandari has placed reliance on the State through the Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 961 , Mohan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh: AIR 1976 SC 1095 , Madhukar Purshottam and another vs Talab Haji Hussain and others, AIR 1958 Bombay 406 , Chandan Singh v. The State 1978 WLN 1 and Thakur Ram and others v. The State of Bihar: AIR 1977 SC 911. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel far both the parties. Different considerations have to be taken in view at the time of the cancellation of bail, than those which are considered at the initial stage of grant or refusal of bail. It is only in exceptional cases an order of bail granted in favour of the accused should be cancelled. It has also been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the State through the Delhi Administration V. Sanjay Gandhi (supra) that rejection of bail when bail 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. It has also been observed in Mohan Singhs case (supra), as under: "Counsel for the State pressed before us that the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima facie (according to results of the investigation) was substantiate Let assume so. Even then refusal of the bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale of bail. This Court has explained the real basis of bail law in Gurucharan Singh v. State of Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 179 : (1978 Cr. L J. 129) we do not think there is as yet any allegation against the appellant of interference with the course of justice or other well established the grounds for refusal of bail. This Court has explained the real basis of bail law in Gurucharan Singh v. State of Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 179 : (1978 Cr. L J. 129) we do not think there is as yet any allegation against the appellant of interference with the course of justice or other well established the grounds for refusal of bail. In this view, we direct that the appellant be allowed to continue on bail until farther orders to the contrary passed by the Sessions Court, if good grounds are made out to its satisfaction." 6. As regards the conduct of the accused subsequent to his release on bail on 8-1-81, there are serious allegations and counter delegation audit cannot be determined beyond doubt that the accused committed the acts as alleged by the complainant. As regards the case pending against the accused under section 307 IPC and other Sections, he has been acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6-2-81 vide Ex R-2 Admittedly, the prosecution evidence in the present case is over and the case is now fixed for final arguments, on 8-4-81. Thus, the only circumstance which remains to be considered against. the accused is that he had made a wrong statement in his application for giant of bail that he was a regular student of 9th class. It is no correct that the accused had made a wrong averment in this regard. His name had already been struck of the school rolls on 16-1-80 and he was no longer a regular student on the date of filing of the bail application and it cannot be disputed that this factor was also taken into consideration at the time of releasing the accused on bail on 8-1-81, but that factor alone was not the only ground on which the accused was released on bail. The conduct of the accused in this regard was certainly reprehensible, but in my view, now in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the trial of the case itself is almost over and as the certified copy of order-sheet of the trial Court dated 31-3-81 reveals that the case is fixed for final arguments on 8-4-81, I do not consider it just and proper to cancel the bail for such a short period. The main case is going to be disposed of and in case the accused is found guilty, he would have to surrender automatically, and would be sent to Jail. Thus there is no point in cancelling the bail even on this ground of misstatement of fact. 7. In view of all the circumstances, I do not consider it a fit case for the cancellation of bail and the application is accordingly dismissed.Application dismissed. *******