S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—This is an application for cancellation of a bail filed by Pokar Ram under s. 439 (2), Cr. P.C. read with s. 482, Cr.P.C. 2. It may be stated that the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, while exercising the powers of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur on September 13, 1983, accepted the application filed by non-petitioner No. 1, Chandan Singh under s. 438, Cr. P.C. and passed the order for releasing him on bail in the event of his arrest. 3. Petitioner Pokar Ram lodged a report before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, who, at the relevant time was holding the charge of Superintendent of Police. It was stated that on August 23, 1983, at about 4.00 P.M. non-petitioner No. 1 Chandansingh and Shyam Singh, sons of Shri Ranjeet Singh accompanied by master Harpal, Sukhram and Bhanwari resident of village Anva came on a tractor on his filed which is known as Talwada. They stated ploughing the field though crop of Bajra and gawar which was sown by him was standing on it. The wife of the petitioners son came there and asked them not to plough the tractor in the field. It has been stated that they started beating her. On hearing cries, the petitioner Pokar Ram went there but he was also given beating by them. The noising of the wife (Smt. Randu) of the petitioners son Jagmal was forcibly snatched away. The petitioner is said to have gone to collect the persons of his Dhani. Non-petitioner No. 1 Chandansingh then came there armed with a gun and reached at the Dhani of the complainants son and fired gun-shots on his son Bhanwaria, which are said to have struck on the stomach and chest of Bhanwaria. He became unconscious. His mother, Harsukha (son) and Kalia, who is his brothers son were also injured. The report of the incident was submitted before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur After investigation, a case under ss. 101, 441, 147, 148, 149,378 and 323, IPC was registered and further investigation commenced. Bhanwaria was admitted in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur on August 24, 1983. He remained there as an indoor patient. He, however, died subsequently. After his death, the offence was converted into one under s. 302, IPC. Non-petitioner No. 1 Chandansingh submitted an application under s. 438, Cr.P.C On September 29, 1983 before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. Bhanwaria was admitted in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur on August 24, 1983. He remained there as an indoor patient. He, however, died subsequently. After his death, the offence was converted into one under s. 302, IPC. Non-petitioner No. 1 Chandansingh submitted an application under s. 438, Cr.P.C On September 29, 1983 before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. That application was however, decided on September 30, 1983 by Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1 Jodhpur, who was holding charge of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. Vide order dated Sept. 30, 1983, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail to non-applicant No. 1. The complainant Pokar Ram has filed this application for cancellation of bail on October 5, 1983, stating that in the facts and circumstances of the case and further having regard to the gravity of the offence the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, should not have granted anticipatory bail to non-petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, it should be cancelled. 3. Notice of this application was issued to non-petitioner No. 1 Chandan Singh as well as to State of Rajasthan. Non-petitioner No. 1 Chandan Singh has filed reply to the application dated February 23, 1984 opposing the prayer made by the complainant-petitioner for cancellation of the bail granted to him. 4. Amongst other objection an objections, was also raised that the complainant-petitioner has no locus-standi to move the application for cancellation of bail. After that the complainant has filed affidavit on February 29, 1984 controverting the allegations made in the reply which was filed by non-petitioner No. 1. Non-petitioner No. 1 submitted affidavits of Budda Ram, Ranjeet Singh, Chandan Singh, Gokha Bhakarram and Rugharam on March 21, 1984. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed three affidavits of (1) Pokar Ram; (2) Bhagchand; and (3) Bhakar Ram on March 22, 1984. Thereafter non-petitioner No. 1 submitted an application on March 23, 1984 praying that the petitioner may be summoned and non-petitioner No. 1 may be permitted to cross-examine him. This application was opposed by filing reply on March 29, 1984. An application was also moved on March 29, 1984 on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2 to put on record the affidavits of Rugharam, Unkarsingh, Nena Ram. Raju Ram, Harlal, Motiram, Bhera Ram, Amlu Ram, Sona Ram Dhokal Ram and the documents. This is the material on record. 5. This application was opposed by filing reply on March 29, 1984. An application was also moved on March 29, 1984 on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2 to put on record the affidavits of Rugharam, Unkarsingh, Nena Ram. Raju Ram, Harlal, Motiram, Bhera Ram, Amlu Ram, Sona Ram Dhokal Ram and the documents. This is the material on record. 5. After hearing arguments on the application, I directed the Public-Prosecutor to reproduce the case diary for my perusal. He produced the case diary which was returned after perusal. 6. I have heard Mr. R.N. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner and Mr. R.P. Dave, Public Prosecutor and Mr. M.D. Purohit and Mr. K.N. Joshi for non-petitioner No. 1. I have considered the material on record and the case diary. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor stated that he has nothing to say in the matter and the Court may dispose of the application under sec. 439 (2), Cr P.C. on the basis of the material on record. 8. An objection has been raised in the reply filed on behalf of the non-petitioner No.l that when the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.l, Jodhpur has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner such order cannot be cancelled or modified, at the instance of the complainant. In other words, locus standi of the petitioner to move an application for cancellation of bail was questioned and challenged. On the other hand, Mr. R.N. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that an application for cancellation of bail can be moved by a private party. The petitioner is a complainant. It is settled law that even a private party can apply for cancellation of bail. 9. It was held in Mani Ram vs. Idan (1) and Jagram vs. Bhamandi (2) that there is nothing in s. 439(2), which creates a bar that an application under s. 439(2) for cancellation of bail cannot be entertained is made by a private complainant in a criminal case in which the State is the prosecutor. The same view has been taken by the High Courts of Allahabad, Delhi, Patna, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. I am of opinion that a private party can apply for cancellation of bail, it is futile for the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner no. 1 to contend that the petitioner who is complainant has no locus standi to move an application for cancellation of bail under sec. I am of opinion that a private party can apply for cancellation of bail, it is futile for the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner no. 1 to contend that the petitioner who is complainant has no locus standi to move an application for cancellation of bail under sec. 439(2), Cr.P.C. The preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application for cancellation of bail at the instance of the complainant is, therefore, over-ruled. 10. Now, I proceed to examine the merits of the application filed by the complainant-petitioner. 11. Mr. R. N. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, pressed for my consideration that the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur having regard to the nature of accusation, made against non-petitioner no. 1 and the gravity of the offence, should not have granted anticipatory bail to him in exercise of his powers under s. 438 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the order has been made in complete disregard of the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail. He placed strong reliance on Gurbaksh Singh vs. State of Punjab (3). It was contended that by passing the order for anticipatory bail a basic and fundamental error was committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He referred to the various decisions of this Court and also of the Supreme Court. 12. A probe has to be made whether there exists grounds for cancellation of the bail under s. 439 (2), Cr.P.C. 13. Before proceeding further with the matter, it was useful to advert to the principles that have been laid down by apex court to the country. I will first examine the two authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions. In Gurcharan Singh vs. State (4), ss. 437 and 439 were examined. It was observed therein as under : — "Ordinarily the High Court will not exercise its discretion to interfere with an order of bail granted by the Sessions Judge in favour of an accused." After referring to State vs. Capt. In Gurcharan Singh vs. State (4), ss. 437 and 439 were examined. It was observed therein as under : — "Ordinarily the High Court will not exercise its discretion to interfere with an order of bail granted by the Sessions Judge in favour of an accused." After referring to State vs. Capt. Jagjit Singh(5) their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the question relating to powers of High Court under s. 439 (2) in respect of cancellation of bail, have stated that the Sessions Judge did not take into proper account the grave apprehension of the prosecution that there was a likelihood of the appellants tampering with the prosecution witnesses and that in the peculiar nature of that case revealed from the allegations and the position of the appellants in relation to the eye witnesses, it was incumbent for the Sessions Judge to give proper weight to the serious apprehension of the prosecution with regard to the tampering with the eye witnesses which was urged before him in resisting the application for bail. After dealing with the aforesaid point, it was observed to para 29 of the report as under :— "We may repeat the two paramount considerations, viz, likelihood of the accused feeling from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a court of justice. It is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail." 14. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the order cancelling the bail by the High Court was not interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution. 15. In Delhi Admn. vs. Sanjay Gandhi (6) ss. 437(5) and 439 (2), Cr.P.C. came up for consideration. I am tempted to quote here the following observations;— "Rejection of bail when bail is applied for in one thing, cancellation of bail already granted in quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case then to cancel a bail granted in such a case. 437(5) and 439 (2), Cr.P.C. came up for consideration. I am tempted to quote here the following observations;— "Rejection of bail when bail is applied for in one thing, cancellation of bail already granted in quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case then 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 conductive to a fair trail to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trail. The fact that prosecution witnesses have turned hostile cannot by itself justify the interference that the accused has won them over. A brother or a Sister of a parent who has seen the commission of crime, may, resile in the Court from a statement" recorded during the course of investigation. That happens instinctively, out of natural love and affection, not out of persuasion by the accused. The witness has a stake in the innocence of the accused and tries therefore to save him from the guilt. Likewise, an employee may, out of a sense of gratitude oblige the employer by uttering on untruth without pressure or persuasion. In other words, the objective act that witnesses have turned hostile must be shown to bear a equal connection with the subjective involvement therein of the respondent. Without such proof, a bail once granted cannot be cancelled on the off chance or on the supposition that witnesses have been won over by the accused. Inconsistent testimony can no more be ascribed by itself to the influence of the accused than consistent testimony, by itself can be ascribed to the pressure of the prosecution." 16. In a recent case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagirath Singh Judeja vs. State of Gujarat (7) had occasions as consider s 439. Their Lordships have stated the consideration which are relevant for deciding an application for cancellation to bail. In para 5, it was observed as under : — "If there is no prima facie case there is no question of considering other circumstances. Their Lordships have stated the consideration which are relevant for deciding an application for cancellation to bail. In para 5, it was observed as under : — "If there is no prima facie case there is no question of considering other circumstances. But even where a prima facie case is established the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence." It will also be useful to excerpt the following from para 6 of the report:— "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 whelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the 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 is 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 he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. 17. From the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court and in particular Bhagiraths case (supra) it is clear that while dealing with the application for cancellation of bail warranting interference with the discretionary order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting bail are; (1) whether the accused would be readily available during the trial; (2) whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with the prosecution witnesses. 18. On behalf of the petitioners affidavits have been filed to show that non-petitioner No. 1 Chandan Singh is Sarpanch of Panchayat Dawara and is an influential person and further that his father Ranjeetsingh is Ex. M.L.A. and at present is Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti. Both of them bring undue pressure upon the complainant not to prosecute the case and to change the statement of the witnesses. M.L.A. and at present is Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti. Both of them bring undue pressure upon the complainant not to prosecute the case and to change the statement of the witnesses. On the other hand, non-petitioner No. 1 Chandan Singh has filed affidavits to show that a settlement between the petitioner on one hand and non-petitioner No. 1 and his father Ranjeet Singh on the other hand was arrived at in the presence of respectable persons of the Panchayat (Society) and Pokar Ram admitted his mistake before them and now he is resiling from the compromise. The allegation that Ranjeet Singh exercised under influence on the petitioner Poker Ram for compromise was denied. All the deponents of the affidavit of the petitioner have stated that a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and Ranjeetsingh in a meeting which was largely attended and that Ranjeetsingh did not exercise any undue influence on Pokarram. It appears from the affidavits of the parties that there is dispute in regard to the land in respect of which the settlement was attempted. 19. The anticipatory bail was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on September 30,1983. The application for cancellation of bail was moved on October 5, 1983, i.e. only after the five days from the date of granting bail. 20. The anticipatory bail was granted on the conditions : ¼1½ vuqla/kku esa lg;ksx nsxk] ¼2½ vuqla/kku esa ck/kk ugha Mkysxk vkSj ¼3½ Hkkjr NksM+ dj ugha tkosxkA** From the material on record, it is difficult to infer that non-petitioner No. 1 has acted in breach of the aforesaid conditions. Non-petitioner No. 1 Chandan Singh cannot be said to have abused the discretion, which was exercised in his favour. Nothing has been shown that non-petitioner No. 1 Chandansingh is not available for investigation or that he would not be readily available during the trial. The question of abusing the grant of bail by tampering with the prosecution evidence also, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise. 21. Para 6 of the affidavit of Pokar Ram dated Feb. The question of abusing the grant of bail by tampering with the prosecution evidence also, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise. 21. Para 6 of the affidavit of Pokar Ram dated Feb. 28,1984 is as under:- ^^¼6½ ;g gS fd rkjh[k 2-2-84 dks xzke yksgkoV ds gjhxkjke fokuksbZ ¼<+kdk½ o lkojht ds Hkh[kkjke fokuksbZ] xaxkjke, f[kyksjh] gkf.k;k ,oe~ Hkk[kkjke gkf.k;ktks fd izkFkhZ ds tkfr ds ,oe~ ekus tkrs gS] dks vizkFkhZ ds firk j.kthrflag izkFkhZ ds ?kj ij ysdj vk,] izkFkhZ dks ncko fn;k fd eqdnes esa jkthukek dj yks o gkbZdksVZ esa tekur jí djokus dh nj[kokLr okil ys yksA bl ij eq> izkFkhZ us dgk fd eSa jkthukek ugha d:axk ftl ij mijksDr iapksa us dgk fd j.kthrflagth izHkkokkyh vkneh gS vkSj rqe xjhc vkneh gks rqEgkjk xkao esa jguk eqfdy gks tk;sxkA j.kthrflag eqdnesa esa jkthukek djus ds fy, rqedks tehu o dqN iSls ns nsaxsA j.kthrflag us Hkh ml oDr eq> izkFkhZ dks dgk fd jkthukek djus esa gh rqEgkjh cpr gS ojuk esjs yM+ds panuflag o ?ku;keflag o nwljs eqyfte rqEgkjk fQj uqdlku dj nsaxsA eSaus gkFk tksM+dj ;gh tokc fn;k fd bl ckjs esa eSa esjh vksj ls jkthukek ugha d:axkA bl ij j.kthrflag us ;gh dgk fd blesa rqEgkjk Hkyk ugha gS vkSj ogka ls iapksa dks ysdj pys x,A** The fact that non-petitioner 1 Chandansingh and his father are influential persons and hold important position in the Panchayat of Zila Parishad is also no ground for cancelling bail. In this case for cancellation of bail, it is not necessary to examine whether anticipatory bail under s. 438 should have been granted but what is to be seen is whether good grounds exist for cancellation of bail. The matters enumerated by the Supreme Court in regard to cancellation of the bail do not exist in this case. 22. In the facts and circumstances in this case, at this stage, no order for cancelling the bail, can be made, when the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur has granted anticipatory bail to non-petitioner No. 1 Chandan Singh by his order dated September 30, 1983. 23. The application for cancellation of bail filed by Pokar Ram on October 5, 1983 is, accordingly dismissed.