Judgment 1. These two applications were heard together as they arise out of the same matter and they are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the parties. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these two applications, in short, are that opp. party 2, 3 and 4 of Cr.Misc.No.2852/1986 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dt.11-3-1986 in Cr.Misc. No.2026/1986. The said order reads as follows :- Heard both the parties. In view of the supervision note of the higher police officer, I accept the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Let the three petitioners namely Surendra Pandey, Hari Govind Pandey and Madho Pandey be released in the event of their arrest, in Siwan Muffasil P.S.Case No.21 of 1985, on a bail of Rs.4,000.00 (Rupees four thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, subject to the conditions Under S.438(2) Cr.P.C." 3 An application under S.439(2) of Cri. P.C. being Cr.Misc.No.2852/1986 was filed by the petitioner of the aforesaid miscellaneous case to cancel the order granting anticipatory bail dt.11-3-1986 in Cr. Misc.No.2026/1986 which is the subject matter of the aforesaid applications. 4. This Court vide order dt.9-4-1986 also issued notice to one Maheshwari Pandey to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for making false affidavit on oath in the bail petition (Cr.Misc.No.2026/1986) and annexing therewith false documents against the said Maheshwari Pandey a separate case was registered bearing Cr.Misc. No.3737/1986. It appears that Maheshwari Pandey in pursuance to the said notice has filed show cause which is on the records of the aforesaid Cr.Misc.No.3737/1986. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in Cr.Misc.No.2852 has submitted that opp.party 2 to 4 have obtained the bail on wrong statement of facts and by concealing certain materials from the Court, and, therefore, the order dt.11-3-1986 whereby these opposite party Nos.2 to 4 were released on anticipatory bail, be cancelled. In support of his contention, the learned counsel drew my attention to certain paras of the application (Cr.Misc.No.2026/1986). According to the learned counsel, the statements made in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the said application were not correct. In para 8. a statement has been made that the petitioner Surendra Pandey (opp. In support of his contention, the learned counsel drew my attention to certain paras of the application (Cr.Misc.No.2026/1986). According to the learned counsel, the statements made in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the said application were not correct. In para 8. a statement has been made that the petitioner Surendra Pandey (opp. party No.2) was a teacher in a middle school in the petitioners village which was started by the villagers. In para 9, it was stated that none of the injuries on the person of the said informant are such that might even remotely attract the provision of S.307 of the Penal Code. It was further stated that the doctor gave his opinion that the injuries were simple and as regards injury No.6, it was bruise in the chest, the doctor reserved his opinion. It was also stated in para 10 that the injury report falsifies the allegations made by the informant. It was vehemently argued that all these statements made in the application which was sworn in by said Maheshwari Pandey were false. Therefore, on such statements the anticipatory bail which has been granted to opp.party 2 to 4 should be cancelled. 6. In Cr.Misc.No.2852/1986 filed by the petitioner Vishwanath Tiwary, it has been stated in para 9 that the petitioners of Cr. Misc.No.2026/1986 have made several wrong and false statements in their anticipatory bail application and have concealed several facts namely that in para 4, 9 and 10 of the application it has been wrongly stated that all the injuries were simple and no further opinion of the doctor with regard to injury No.6 has been produced before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the injury report shows that all the injuries were on vital parts of the body and injury No.6 was grievous and two ribs have been fractured which clearly makes the case under S.307 of the Penal Code. In para 10, it has been stated that similar in para No.6 of their bail application, the opposite party have wrongly stated that several litigations were going on between the informants family and the petitioners. There is no case except a proceeding under S.107 of the Cri.P.C. between the parties. It has been stated that Siwan Town P.S. Case No.46/85 was lodged by one Rishikesh Pandey against the son of the petitioner namely Dr. Hardip Tiwary in order to defame him. There is no case except a proceeding under S.107 of the Cri.P.C. between the parties. It has been stated that Siwan Town P.S. Case No.46/85 was lodged by one Rishikesh Pandey against the son of the petitioner namely Dr. Hardip Tiwary in order to defame him. But on investigation the case was found to be false. It has further been stated in para 11 that one Nageshwar Tiwary lodged Nautan P.S.Case No.6/85 against this petitioner (Vishwanath Tiwary) on 28-2-85 and although in the first information report the names of opp.parties 2, 3 and 4 figure as witnesses in that case, but they did not say anything against this petitioner in their bail application. The further statement made in para No.12 that opp. party 2 Surendra Pandey is a non-matric and hence there was no question of his being a school teacher and in this way the statement made to this effect in the bail application was also false. 7. A. counter affidavit in the nature of show cause has been filed on behalf of opp. parties 2 to 4 where all these statements mentioned above, have been controverted. Mr. Thakur Prasad learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opp. parties 2 to 4 in Cr.Misc.No.2852/86 and also appearing for Maheshwari Pandey in Cr.Misc.No.3737/86 drew my attention to certain paragraphs of the show cause petition namely paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. It is needless to quote all those statements mentioned in the show cause petition. Maheshwari Pandey who is a relation of opp. party 2 to 4 has sworn this affidavit where he has stated that the statements made in paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Criminal Misc. No.2852/86 are not correct. According to the deponent not a single statement made in Cr.Misc.No.2026/86 was wrong. According to him the injury report which was given by the doctor who examined Vishwanath Tiwary was annexed with the bail application but the X-ray with regard to injury No.6 was not available to the petitioners of the bail application. The X-ray report was not made available to them when they took certified copy of the injury report. According to the opp. party Nos.2 to 4, number of cases are pending between the parties and it is wrong to say that except a proceeding under S.107 of the Cr.P.C. no other case is pending. The X-ray report was not made available to them when they took certified copy of the injury report. According to the opp. party Nos.2 to 4, number of cases are pending between the parties and it is wrong to say that except a proceeding under S.107 of the Cr.P.C. no other case is pending. Rishikesh Pandey has filed a first information report, who happened to be the uncle of opp. party 2 against Hardip Tiwary son of Vishwanath Tiwary (informant-petitioner), which was numbered as Siwan Town P.S. Case No.0046/85 dt.9-2-1985. Similarly they have mentioned other cases. In para 9 of the show cause petition it has been stated that the statement made in para 6 of the application in question is false and incorrect. It was false to state that opposite party took the local Deputy Supdt. of Police in collusion. According to the opposite party, when they found that the Investigating Officer was in collusion with the informant, they filed an application before the Supdt. of Police who directed the Deputy Supdt. of Police, Siwan to investigate into Siwan P.S. Case No.21/85 (in which these opp. parties have been granted anticipatory bail), which will be apparent from the letter dt.6-9-1985 submitted to the Supdt. of Police. Siwan. According to Mr. Thakur Prasad, nothing has been suppressed or concealed from the Court at the time of passing of the order dt.11-3-1986 which is sought to be cancelled. 8. It was further contended by Mr. Thakur Prasad that the impugned order shows that the Court granted anticipatory bail in view of the supervision note of the higher police officer and after considering other facts and materials on the record. The impugned order does not refer to any injury report. Therefore, whether X-ray report was there or not, was immaterial for the cancellation of the aforesaid order. It was further contended that ordinarily a court does not cancel the order granting bail to the persons unless very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are brought on the record. In support of this contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja V/s. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC 372 : (1984 Cri LJ 160). 9. On the other hand Mr. Dwivedi vehemently argued that there was no supervision note at all in this case given by any higher police officer. Therefore, the Court was misled by opp.party 2 to 4. 9. On the other hand Mr. Dwivedi vehemently argued that there was no supervision note at all in this case given by any higher police officer. Therefore, the Court was misled by opp.party 2 to 4. He drew my attention to para 3 to the order dt.27-2-1986 passed by the Sessions Judge, Siwan in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.36/86 rejecting the anticipatory bail application of these opposite parties 2 to 4 which was filed in Cr. Misc.No.2026/1986. It was contended that prayer for anticipatory bail was made before the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that in his supervision note dt.6-8-1985, the Sub-divisional Police Officer has mentioned that the case was totally false and the counter-blast of Case No.6/85 filed earlier. According to Mr. Dwivedi, there was nothing like supervision note, so it was of no consequence. 10. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. On the record of these applications, I find that there is some type of report filed by the Dy. Supdt. of police, which "is Annexure-1 appended to the show cause application filed in Cr.Misc.No.2852/1986. Whether it is a supervision note or the report of any higher police officer is immaterial while disposing of these applications considering the cancellation of bail. 11. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of the high Court and Supreme Court that the power of grant of bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. In the case of the State through Delhi Administration V/s. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 961 : (1978 Cri LJ 952) certin criteria have been laid down by the Supreme Court in passing order rejecting application for cancellation of bail. Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing whereas cancellation of bail already granted to a person is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail already granted in such a case because cancellation of bail necessarily involves a review of decision already made. The Supreme Court in AIR 1978 SC 961 : (1978 Cri LJ 952) (supra) has laid down certain criteria for cancellation of bail already granted to the accused persons, namely that the (i) accused has abused his liberty; (ii) there was a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice. The Supreme Court in AIR 1978 SC 961 : (1978 Cri LJ 952) (supra) has laid down certain criteria for cancellation of bail already granted to the accused persons, namely that the (i) accused has abused his liberty; (ii) there was a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice. The Supreme Court in AIR 1978 SC 961 : (1978 Cri LJ 952) (supra) has held :- "The power to take back in custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. But the power, though of an extraordinary nature, is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases when, by a preponderance of probabilities, it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses." 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja, (1984 Cri LJ 160) (supra) has observed :- "We fail to understand what the learned Judge of the High Court desires to convey when he says that once a prima facie case is established it is necessary for the Court to examine the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence was committed. 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 or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. We would have certainly overlooked this aspect of the matter if the approach of the learned Judge was otherwise one which would commend to us". In the aforesaid case the bail was granted to the accused persons which was cancelled by the High Court and the matter went before the Supreme Court where the highest Court of the land made the above observation. 13 In the present case, I do not find any sort of allegations against opp. parties 2 to 4 that they are interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses. 13 In the present case, I do not find any sort of allegations against opp. parties 2 to 4 that they are interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses. There is no averment in the petition that they were abusing their liberty or they are misusing their privilege nor there is any averment that they are interfering in the course of justice. Ordinarily a Court should not cancel the bail already granted to a person unless there are very cogent and overwhelming circumstances which compel the Court to pass such order cancelling the bail. 14. Having considered all these facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case where once the bail has been granted to these opposite parties it cancelled. 15. In the result, Cr.Misc.No.2852/1986 is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the aforesaid application, the rule issued against Maheshwari Pandey in Criminal Misc. No.3737/1986 is discharged.