G. R. Luthra,j. ( 1 ) THE present petition is for cancellation of bail granted to Lal Bahadur alias Lal Babu respondent who, according to the prosecution, had committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 436, 380, 302, 201 read with Section 149 IPC. The version of the prosecution is that Bakshi Rajinder Singh was residing in house No. RZ-1/295, Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur Delhi along with his wife Smt. Harject Kaur, two daughters and one son. On 31st October, 1984, Bakshi Sardul Singh, father of Bakshi Rajinder Singh, came from Yamuna Nagar and stayed with his son Bakshi Rajinder Singh. ( 2 ). On 31st October, 1984 unfortunate assassination of late Prime Minister of India Smt. Indira Gandhi took place. Thereafter disturbances followed. The present case, according to the prosecution, had arisen out of the said disturbances consisting of arson lotting, robberies and murders. ( 3 ). The prosecution was set in motion on 9th November 1984 by lodging of a report by Smt. Harjeet Kaur. That report briefly is as follows. ( 4 ). On 31st October, 1984 families of Sikhs were being killed and their houses were being burnt. As a precaution Harjeet kaur sent her children to her father S. Gobind Singh resident of house No. WZ-21, Hari Nagar, Ghantaghar, Delhi. ( 5 ). On November 1, 1984 in the morning three persons including the respondent Lal Babu came and looted her house. On account of being terrified she alongwith her husband and father-in-law took shelter in the house of Dr. Harbeer Singh Sharma. ( 6 ). On November 3, 1984 at about 8. 30 a. m. the aforesaid three persons and some others attacked the house of said Dr. Sharma who then happened to go to the police for making security arrangements. On seeing the mob she went on the roof of the house of Dr. Sharma while her husband and father-in-law concealed themselves in a room. Lal Babu etc. set the house of Dr. Sharma ablaze with the result that her husband and father-in law were burnt in the house itself. After the burning of the- house, half burnt dead bodies were taken out by the mob, put into bags and went away. Sharma while her husband and father-in-law concealed themselves in a room. Lal Babu etc. set the house of Dr. Sharma ablaze with the result that her husband and father-in law were burnt in the house itself. After the burning of the- house, half burnt dead bodies were taken out by the mob, put into bags and went away. She then first went to Janakpuri and from there she availed the hospitality of military officers and went in military vehicle to Geetanjali Park for the purpose of finding out as to what had happened to the dead bodies. However, nothing was found out. Thereafter she lodged the report with the police on November 9, 1984. ( 7 ). Lal Bahadur respondent was arrested. He made an application for grant of bail to the court of Sessions. Shri Mahesh Chandra, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi directed release of the respondent subject to furnishing of a personal bond with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned. Lal Bahadur furnished the personal and surety bonds with the result that he was released. ( 8 ). Delhi Administration filed an application for cancellation of that hail which came up before Shri Mahesh Chandra, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. He dismissed that application on 11th March 1985. Feeling aggrieved against that order of dismissal of the application, the present petition was filed in the High Court. ( 9 ). Notice of this application was given to the respondent who opposed the present application. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 10 ). The learned Addl. Sessions Judge granted the bail having regard to the following two circumstances : (I) The occurrence took place on 3rd November, 1985. The FIR was delayed and was lodged on 9th November, 1985. (ii) The respondent was described as Lal Babu while his correct name is Lal Bahadur. Smt. Harjeet Kaur being neighbour of Lal Bahadur must be knowing his correct name and if she meant the present respondent Lal Bahadur to be the culprit, she must have given the correct name and would not have given his name as Lal Babu. Counsel for the State contended that both these ground had been wrongly relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. He submitted that there was good justification for lodging delayed FIR. Counsel for the State contended that both these ground had been wrongly relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. He submitted that there was good justification for lodging delayed FIR. He explained that during disturbances it was very difficult for any person to have gone to the police station for lodging the FIR. and, therefore, when the situation had slightly eased, she lodged the report. Learned counsel also contended that there was not much difference in the name because some people call the respondent as Lal Babu while others describe him as Lal Bahadur but that it was very clear that she meant the respondent as the culprit. ( 11 ). The learned counsel also relied upon an affidavit dated 20th May 1985 of Dr. Harbeer Singh Sharma, the relevant portion of which reads as under: "1. That on 3. 11. 1984 my house was looted and was put on fire by Lal Bahadur @ Lal Babu and his accomplices and 2 Sardar namely Rajinder Singh and Sardul Singh who were hiding in my house were killed and their dead body was burnt by them. 2. That accused Lal Bahadur was arrested by the police but he was bailed out. Lal Bahadur is threatening me and my family of and on. I apprehend dangers of my life and that of the family members. The learned counsel submitted that that clearly shows that the respondent was trying to tamper with the evidence and that that itself was a sufficient ground for cancellation of the bail. ( 12 ). In Bhagiralhsinh Judeja vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1984 S. C. 372, it was held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances were necessary for cancellation of a bail already granted. Therefore it is to be seen if there are any overwhelming circumstances in the present case for the cancellation of the bail. The learned Sessions Judge expressed his opinion as to why he was granting the bail. In his opinion there was no prima facie case, in as much as correct name of the respondent was not mentioned and there was delay in the lodging of the FIR. I do not say that the explanation given for delay in lodging the FIR is not punishable and may be at the trial it is taken as very plausible. In his opinion there was no prima facie case, in as much as correct name of the respondent was not mentioned and there was delay in the lodging of the FIR. I do not say that the explanation given for delay in lodging the FIR is not punishable and may be at the trial it is taken as very plausible. It is also possible that ultimately the respondent might beheld to be responsible for the commission of the offence in the trial court. But at this stage I am of the view that it is not possible to say anything contrary to what was expressed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and that it is not proper to interfere in the exercise of discretion by him. ( 13 ). There is no doubt that serious view is taken when there is an attempt to tamper with evidence by an accused who is on bail. There is also no doubt that in such cases cancellation of a bail is immediately called for. The affidavit which contains allegation of tampering with evidence must contain particulars as to how the tampering was being resorted to. It is not mentioned in the affidavit of Dr. Sharma as to how he was receiving threats from the respondent. The allegation in this respect is very vague. It is not mentioned if the respondent met him and conveyed the threats orally. It is also not mentioned if the threats were conveyed on telephone. The dates of conveying of the threats are also not given. It is also not mentioned as to what are the exact wording of the threats which are alleged to have been given off and on. ( 14 ). Under the above circumstances I do not find justification for cancellation of the bail. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.