B. M. LAT, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition the applicant seeks cancellation of bail granted to the accused non-applicant No. 1, B. V. Karanth, by this Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1747 of 1986 dated 24. 6. 1986 on the ground inter alia that after getting the benefit of bail, during the pendency of the criminal trial for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, the accused-non-applicant B. V. Karanth by misusing the benefit of bail, is tampering with the prosecution witnesses so as to get himself acquitted. ( 2 ) ACCUSED-NON-APPLICANT No. 1 B. V. Karanth, a recipient of Padma Shrit, an eminent artist, renowned actor, director and producer, is presently working as the Director of Rang Mandal attached to the Bharat Bhawant, Bhopal. He is facing his trial for charges punishable under Sections 307 and 201, Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 24-5-1986 at about 11. 40 A. M. at Qutbi House, Professors Colony, Bhopal, where the victim Kumari Vibha resides, the non- applicant Karanth tried to kill her by setting fire to her clothes after pouring kerosene oil. On hearing cries, one Ameena Bi, a maid servant, Hafiz, a neighbour, Shrimati M. J. Qutbi, the landlady, Faroque and Kumari Siba rushed to the house of Kumari Vibha Mishra. Faroque knocked the door of the victims house which was latched from inside. On knocking the door repeatedly for about 5/6 minutes, the accused opened the door. He was extremely nervous and upon inquiry stated that Vibha Mishra got burnt while cooking. Faroque found that some clothes and mat were also burnt and the room was full of smoke. Faroque called his sister Siba to help Kumari Vibha Mishra for changing her clothes after removing the burnt clothes from her body. Shrimati Qutbi also found smell of kerosene oil. On being asked, Kumari Vibha Mishra told them that she caught fire on account of spilling of kerosene oil over her clothes, from the gas stove. ( 3 ) THE victim Kumari Vibha Mishra was admitted in Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal the cry day and from there a report was lodged in Talaiya Police Station House, Bhopal. Shri T. B. S. Chouhan, Town Inspector recorded her dying declaration in the hospital. He also recorded statements of the witnesses viz. Amina Bi, Faroque, Siba and the landlady Smt. Qutbi. Shri T. B. S. Chouhan, Town Inspector recorded her dying declaration in the hospital. He also recorded statements of the witnesses viz. Amina Bi, Faroque, Siba and the landlady Smt. Qutbi. Kumari Vibha Mishra was having serious burn injuries of 70 to 80 per cent on her body. It is recorded in the case diary statements of the witnesses that at the time of the incident, accused Karanth was inside the house and his hands were also burnt for which he gave extra-judicial confession before Dr. Harish Chandra. Certain letters exchanged between Vibha Mishra and Karanth, were also seized and sent to the Handwriting Expert. In her statement Amina Bi stated that a quarrel took place between the victim and the accused, which ended with a shriek of a female voice charging the other for causing burns. Statements of some more witnesses were also recorded by the police. ( 4 ) NON-APPLICANT Karanth was arrested on 24. 5. 1986 for the said charges. ( 5 ) HE moved an application before the Sessions Judge, Bhopal who rejected it on 29. 5. 1986. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER, the accused Karanth came up before this Court by filling an application under Section 439, Cr. P. C. vide Misc. Criminal Case No. 1747/06 and this Court, stated above, released the accused Karanth on bail on 24. 6. 1986. ( 7 ) IT is noteworthy that in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1747/86, the Town Inspector Shri T. B. S. Chouhan has filed his affidavit on 16. 6. 1986 stating that in case the non-applicant Karanth is released on bail, there is possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses. In para 11 of the affidavit he has stated, The case has assumed importance in the wake of happening which has aroused public tempers. As such it was pointed out that there is great agitation in the public and apprehension of tampering with the prosecution witnesses, if the accused is released on bail, has already been expressed on oath. This is also noteworthy that the bail application was vehemently opposed by the prosecution before the trial Court at Bhopal and also before this Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1747 of 86 by pointing each and every probability if the accused is released on bail, tampering with the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. This is also noteworthy that the bail application was vehemently opposed by the prosecution before the trial Court at Bhopal and also before this Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1747 of 86 by pointing each and every probability if the accused is released on bail, tampering with the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. ( 8 ) BY the time, application for cancellation of bail was made, the prosecution witnesses were not examined but soon thereafter the trial started some of the witnesses (though were not material according to the State) were examined. Few of them were declared hostile. This has fortified the ground/apprehension, as alleged by the application in his application. ( 9 ) FURTHER, the applicant to strengthen his contention has also filed a copy of complaint said to have been written by witness Amina Bi, addressing it to Police Station, Tailaiya, Bhopal for taking action against the accused as she was being pressurized not to give evidence against the accused Karanth and in support thereof the applicant has also filed his affidavit. ( 10 ) ON 30. 9. 1986 an application (l. A. No. 3148/86) was moved by the applicant for transfer of the criminal trial from the Court of Sessions at Bhopal to any other Court. While denying the allegations made in this application, accused Karanth and the prosecution have advanced arguments that the applicant has no locus standi to make this application and further it is submitted that it had not been made in accordance with the law. Relating to the locus standi of the applicant, the discussion as made in the succeeding paragraphs, pertaining to the maintainability of the petition for cancellation of bail, shall also govern the disposal of this application as well and as to whether it is maintainable or not is being dealt with in succeeding paragraphs. ( 11 ) THE applications so made by the applicant have been replied by the accused Karanth and the prosecution duly supported with affidavits. In this connection, Shri T. B. S. Chouhan, Town Inspector bas filed his affidavit on 30. 9. 1986 wherein he has denied the statement made by the applicant relating to the tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the accused B. V. Karanth. In this connection, Shri T. B. S. Chouhan, Town Inspector bas filed his affidavit on 30. 9. 1986 wherein he has denied the statement made by the applicant relating to the tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the accused B. V. Karanth. In para 7 of the affidavit he states as under: The investigation has not known regarding attempt to tamper with evidence by the accused by himself or at his instance by some one. ( 12 ) SHRI C. K. Arya, Station House Officer, Talaiya, Bhopal has also filed his affidavit on 15. 10. 1986 stating that he had verified from the police record relating to the application/complaint of Amina Bi and he found that no such complaint was lodged, received or recorded by any officer of the Police Station, Talaiya. He further states that on being contacted, Amina Bi denied to have made any such report. ( 13 ) THE applicant, however, on 16. 10. 1986 filed an application mentioning additional facts and grounds stating that on 27,5. 1986 a demonstration was staged at the gate of Bharat Bhawan in which Champa Bahen of Akhil Bhartiva Rachnatmak Samaj gave a slogan Purify Bharat Bhawan. It is also stated therein that even prior to this Vibha Mishras burning incident on 9. 3. 1983 a lady artist, Sukhbinder Kaur was murdered and due to influence of high officers of Bharat Bhawan Rang Mandal the real culprit could not be brought to book. It is further alleged that Writers Advocates and Journalists of Bhopal also led a procession from New Market Bhopal in which many institutions viz. , Maitri Sewa Sahyog, Sutradhar Lokmanch, Samanantar Jan Sanskriti Manch and several other social institutions took part and all these participants alleged that the incident was the outcome of support of the cultural Department of the State to this criminal gang. Further, in this application it has been charged that Bharat Bhawan is a stage of black-mail, sexual exploitation and murder and it was demanded to dissolve the trust and conduct an impartial inquiry. It is also stated that even in Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha, there was hunger strike and Dharna in the month of June, 1986 and the proceedings of the Vidhan Sabha were adjourned due to burning incident of Vibha Mishra. This application was also replied by the non-applicants. It is also stated that even in Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha, there was hunger strike and Dharna in the month of June, 1986 and the proceedings of the Vidhan Sabha were adjourned due to burning incident of Vibha Mishra. This application was also replied by the non-applicants. ( 14 ) SHRI M. V. Tamaskar, denying the averments of the main petitions and the subsequent, petition in which the additional facts and grounds have been shown by the applicant, argued that there is no material on record to warrant conclusion that the accused Karanth is misusing- the liberty set- forth to him. He argued that the applications as made and filed have no substance and be dismissed giving references to the affidavits filed by T B. S. Chauhan, C. K. Arya and that of Amina Bi. Besides this Sri Tamaskar raised a preliminary objection that the applicant has no locus standi to move such an application for cancellation of bail and on this ground alone, the application deserves to be dismissed. Shri D. Verma, appearing for the accused B. V. Karanth, supporting arguments advanced by Shri Tamaskar, argued that accused Karanth is innocent for the alleged charge of tampering with the prosecution witnesses. He vehemently argued that the accused Karanth is not indulging in such activities. He further argued that no case of accuseds conviction has been made out and therefore, question of tampering with the prosecution witnesses on his part, does not arise. ( 15 ) I shall first deal with the question Whether the applicant has locus standi to file such an application? ( 16 ) IN Thakur Ram Singh v. State of Bihar1, Mudholkar J. speaking for the Supreme Court, precisely dealing with the question of locus standi, has held: In a case which bas proceeded on a police report, a private party has no locus standi. No doubt the terms of 5. 435 are very wide and he can even take up the matter suo motu. The Criminal law is not however, to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who according to that party had caused injury to it. No doubt the terms of 5. 435 are very wide and he can even take up the matter suo motu. The Criminal law is not however, to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who according to that party had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions in criminal matters, the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community, to book. TI ( 17 ) NO doubt, the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the society, has larger responsibility to deal with the situation, but all the same individuals rights are not affected by it. Of course, where on such an application if it is found that an individual is taking action just to wreck private vengeance, the Court may certainly refuse to exercise its powers in his favour, but such is not the situation here. Nothing has been brought on record to point out that this applicant has any personal grudge, bias or vengeance against accused B. V. Karanth. Therefore, the applicant has every right to maintain this application. ( 18 ) IN this context the provisions of Section 439 (2), Cr. P. C. also be not lost sight of, which go to demonstrate that there is no such embargo in accepting an application made by even a private party for the withdrawal of the benefit of bail granted to the accused and to take him in custody. ( 19 ) THIS is not all. As stated above, in cases which have been launched by the police, it is for the police agency to act in the best interest of the prosecution, but where it has been found that the prosecution is in hand with gloves with the accused, then it is not expected from a vigilant citizen to sit like a silent spectator, particularly when in our Constitution Article 51-A has been incorporated by Constitution (42 Amendment) Act, 1976, casting fundamental duties of various kind, on the citizens. ( 20 ) THEREFORE, where a citizen comes to the conclusion that in case certain facts are not brought to the notice of the Court, then the society in general may suffer by the inactiveness on the part of the prosecution. In such a situation certainly, a citizen may come forward and invite attention of the Court bringing all the facts to the knowledge of the Court. This is what the applicant has done in the instant case. ( 21 ) IN such a matter it is expected of the Court to take cognizance and to pass appropriate order. In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and others v. Union of India and others2 such a right of a citizen has been recognized as the action known as public interest litigation. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others3 and S. P. Gupta and others v. Union of India anothers4 it has been held that this doctrine of locus standi is given go by in India and any member of the society having sufficient interest in the matter can maintain action for judicial redress for public injuries arising from the breach of public duties or from violation of some provision of law and seek enforcement of such constitutional or legal provisions. ( 22 ) IT is also held that an individual who moves the Court for judicial redress in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to serve cause of justice and if he is acting for personal gain or private profit or out of political motivation or other consideration, the Court should not allow itself to be activities at the instance of such a person and reject his application at the thresh-hold. ( 23 ) AT this juncture it is pertinent to state that the fundamental duties incorporated in Article 51-A of the Constitution postulate that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to discharge their duties while claiming fundamental rights guaranteed in Chapter III of the Constitution. Therefore, under these rights, a citizen can even challenge each and every action of the State or an individual by which if he apprehends that the interest of the society at large is likely to be affected. Therefore, under these rights, a citizen can even challenge each and every action of the State or an individual by which if he apprehends that the interest of the society at large is likely to be affected. Thus, it is expected from each and every citizen to monitor while exercising arid enforcing his fundamental rights keeping in mind that he owes duties specified in Article 51-A of the Constitution, and if he does not care for the duties, he does not deserve to avail the rights guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution. ( 24 ) WHILE considering the locus standi of a citizen in a matter and determining the same, the rights guaranteed under Chapter III and the fundamental duties enumerated in Part TV-A of the Constitution run parallel to each other. As such a citizen has a right to probe into the matter where he feels that if certain facts are not brought to the notice of the Court, it will cause grave injustice to the society at large. ( 25 ) TN a democratic State like Ours, where the concept of the welfare State is to extend benefit to the society and for the sake of extending the same, or for removing evil activities, if a citizen comes forward and draws the courts attention, then certainly the hurdle of locus standi will not operate. On the other hand, the law will protect such a person in allowing him to bring such facts to the knowledge of the Court which according to him if not adhered to, will cause damage to the society at large. ( 26 ) THEREFORE, the question of locus standi is not to be considered in narrow compass but by giving it a wider arbit, it must be dealt with. Tt has to be seen whether, what the individual, by approaching the Court, states, has any truth and how far it will affect the welfare of the society. With this object alone if the instant case is dealt with, it will be seen that what the applicant has stated in his application, he has stated only for the welfare of the society and therefore in the public interest litigation, the applicant has just made the present application with a view to vindicate the cause of justice. With this object alone if the instant case is dealt with, it will be seen that what the applicant has stated in his application, he has stated only for the welfare of the society and therefore in the public interest litigation, the applicant has just made the present application with a view to vindicate the cause of justice. In Pratap v. State of U. P. 5 Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held thus: The power of revision is one which the High Court can exercise suo motu and all that a person filing the revision petition under that section does, is to draw the Courts attention to an illegal, improper or incorrect finding, sentence or order of a subordinate Court. Such powers are not affected by the fact that a revision is filed by a private person and not by the State. ( 27 ) TN the instant case the applicant while invoking the provisions of Section 439 (2), Cr. P. C. and that of Section 407, Cr. PC. has actually invited the attention of, this Court to show, how at the time of opposing bail, the same investigating officer and the same counsel appearing for the State had opposed the bail application vehemently and just thereafter turned turtle and started supporting the case of the accused. In spite of the fact that certain witnesses have turned hostile in the trial, still they say that the accused Karanth is not indulged to turn the witnesses hostile. ( 28 ) FROM the discussion aforesaid relating to question of locus standi, it is the duty of a citizen to bring such facts to the notice of the Court, which according to him, if timely action is not taken, will be detrimental to the welfare of the society. Thus, every citizen has right to approach the Court and accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by Shri M. V. Tamaskar, Additional Advocate General for the State and Shri D. Verma for non-applicant No. 1, is hereby repelled. ( 29 ) IT is next argued by the learned counsel for the non-applicants that once bail is granted then the same is not lightly to be interfered with, unless and until reliable and cogent material is placed on record that the accused is misusing the liberty set forth to him by any means including tampering with the prosecution witnesses. ( 29 ) IT is next argued by the learned counsel for the non-applicants that once bail is granted then the same is not lightly to be interfered with, unless and until reliable and cogent material is placed on record that the accused is misusing the liberty set forth to him by any means including tampering with the prosecution witnesses. ( 30 ) NO doubt, the principles for consideration of grant of bail are well settled in catena of decision by the apex Court of the land which find place in a number of decisions right from 1962 to 1985, viz. The State of M. P. v. Captain Jagjtt Singh6, State of Rajasthan v. Balchand7 and Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab. 8 However, the question of cancellation of bail was considered in Gurucharan Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration)9. The State through Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi1 and Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat11 and many other cases as well. In these cases it has been observed by the Honble Supreme Court that the consideration for grant of bail and withdrawing the concession of bail, are quite different. It has been held that it is easier to reject the bail petition in a non-bailable case then to withdraw the concession once granted in such a case, as withdrawal of benefit of bail necessarily involves the review of the decision already extended in favour of the accused. Therefore, when strong reasons are brought out then only benefit of bail can be withdrawn. This is based on the concept as held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (supra) that the basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail. ( 31 ) HERE, while discussing the same, it will not be out of point to state that on an earlier occasion when bail was being opposed by the State in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1747 of 86 (B. V. Karanth v. State of M. P.) before this Court, the Police Officer Shri T. B. S. Chouhan has made a statement on oath on 17. 6. 1986 stating that if the accused is released on bail, the possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. He has also stated that the case has assumed importance in the wake of happening, which has aroused public tamper. 6. 1986 stating that if the accused is released on bail, the possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. He has also stated that the case has assumed importance in the wake of happening, which has aroused public tamper. Similar apprehension was expressed before the trial Court giving cogent reasons that accused Karanth had tried to disappear the evidence against him and the same finding was reached by the trial Court while rejecting the bail application in these words; Usne uski shishya ke jale hue wastro ko hata kar sakshya ko big ra ya chhipaya hai tab yeh swabhavik hi hai ki aisa abhiyukt Jamanat par chhootane ke pashchat sakshya ko nahi bigarega ya abhiyojan ko pratikool prabhavit nahi karega yeh sambhav nahi hal. The trial Court further held:abhiyukt ke viruddha Samajik sansthao me ek Andolan ke roop le liya hai jis se abhiyukt ki suraksha Jamanat par chhootne par pratikool prabhavit ho sakti hai. ( 32 ) THIS all goes to demonstrate that the prosecution had every apprehension that the accused will tamper with the prosecution witnesses if released on bail and the same apprehension bas come to true when only a few of the prosecution witnesses were examined in the trial and out of them some have been declared hostile by the prosecution. This fully supports the earlier apprehension expressed by T. B. S. Chouhan and also found by the trial court while rejecting the bail application. The subsequent affidavit filed by T. R. S. Chouhan on 30. 9. 1986 is just contrary to his earlier affidavit. In his affidavit dated 30. 9. 1986 he states: The investigation has no information regarding attempt to temper with evidence by the accused by himself or at his instance by some one. It means till 30. 9. 1986 no investigation was made as to whether the accused is really indulging himself or through some one else in tampering with the prosecution witnesses, but all the same, on oath, he states that Shri Karanth has not indulged himself in tampering with the prosecution witnesses and the same version has been repeated in the very tone by C. K. Arya,station House Officer, Talaiya, Bhopal. ( 33 ) AT this juncture it will not be out of place to state the view expressed by this court (B. M. Lal, J.) in Misc. ( 33 ) AT this juncture it will not be out of place to state the view expressed by this court (B. M. Lal, J.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1299 of 1981 decided on 9. 7. 1985. It runs thus: Here the police has to discharge its duties within very limited sources, whereas in these modern days when the world is entering in 21st Century, in other countries the entire work of Police is being computerized still the investigation and other duties of our police are not less than as compared to that of Scotland Yard Police, but due to pressurization, which is of various kind, investigation of many important cases do not see the light of the day. In the instant case, we do not know as to how and in what circumstances, the Town Inspector, T. B. S. Chouhan came to file his contradictory affidavit. It may be due to pressurization or the like which prevailed upon him to retract his earlier version. ( 34 ) THIS is not all. Before this Court, the prosecution has tried to show that Amina Bi has not filed any application to the Station House Officer, Talaiya, Bhopal. To this effect Amina Bi has filed her affidavit C. K. Arya Station House Officer, Talaiya bas also filed his affidavit to this effect. Surprisingly enough, C. K. Arya has sworn his affidavit on 15. 10. 86 here at Jabalpur stating that he had contacted Amina Bi who denied to have made any such report. However, Amina Bi has also sworn her affidavit on the same day i. e. on 15. 10. 1986 at Bhopal. At whose instance she has filed her affidavit is not known. But, certainly, when C. K. Arya was here at Jabalpur on 15. 10. 1986, it is not that he asked her to file her affidavit. This filing of affidavit by Amina Bi is also suspicious, particularly when C. K. Arya was not there at Bhopal on that day. It goes to show that some agency on behalf of the accused Karanth was working, which has persuaded her to file an affidavit. 10. 1986, it is not that he asked her to file her affidavit. This filing of affidavit by Amina Bi is also suspicious, particularly when C. K. Arya was not there at Bhopal on that day. It goes to show that some agency on behalf of the accused Karanth was working, which has persuaded her to file an affidavit. ( 35 ) THE prosecution being the custodian of the social interest of the society at large, if acts in such a manner that at one time the apprehension which was expressed by the prosecution has come to true and thereafter denying the same and tried to shield the accused, it is really a painful affair. It is not expected from the prosecution to behave in such a manner which gives indirect support to the defence. It is not proper for the police agency which is known as sentinel of the society to act in such a way as to strengthen the case of the accused. ( 36 ) THE contradictory statements made on oath by the prosecution agency certainly raises doubt in reaching the conclusion that some sort of fishy activities of tampering with the prosecution witnesses are going on behalf of the accused. Thus, the material placed on record is sufficient to warrant withdrawal of the concession of bail granted to the accused. ( 37 ) THE argument as advanced by Shri D. Verma on behalf of the accused that the total material collected by the prosecution on the basis of which the evidence is to be adduced at the trial, would not be sufficient to sustain conviction under sections 307 and 201, Indian Penal Code of the accused Karanth, is totally premature one. Since charges have been framed against the accused and at this stage it cannot be said that the material so placed by the prosecution is not sufficient to sustain conviction. So also it is not proper to discuss this aspect of the case in this application for cancellation of bail as it may cause prejudice to either side. But, for cancellation of bail, the material so placed on record by the applicant, is sufficient to withdraw the benefit of bail extended to the accused. So also it is not proper to discuss this aspect of the case in this application for cancellation of bail as it may cause prejudice to either side. But, for cancellation of bail, the material so placed on record by the applicant, is sufficient to withdraw the benefit of bail extended to the accused. ( 38 ) APPLYING the principles referred to above and in view of the aforesaid circumstances of the case, if the facts of the present case is tested with the touch-stone of the principles laid down in the above referred Supreme Court cases, then the conclusion which can legitimately be drawn is that the accused B. V. Karanth has misused the liberty by tampering with the prosecution witnesses after his release on bait and his bail deserves to be cancelled. ( 39 ) NOW, I shall take up l. A. No. 3148 of 1986 under section 407, Criminal Procedure Code for transfer of the case from Bhopal Sessions Division to any other competent Court in Madhya Pradesh. ( 40 ) BOTH non-applicant No. 1, B. V. Karanth and the prosecution have opposed the application for transfer, firstly, on the ground that the applicant has no locus standi to make such an application for transfer of the case and secondly, the application as made and filed, is not supported by an affidavit which is required to be filed in accordance with the provision of sub-section (3) of section 407, Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, on this count the application deserves to be rejected. ( 41 ) AS far as the question of locus standi is concerned, this point has been considered in detail in the foregoing paragraphs and needs no further discussion. The aforesaid discussions also apply to this application as well and as such the applicant has locus standi to move such an application as sub-section (2) of section 407, Criminal Procedure Code also does not postulate any bar. ( 42 ) THE other point relating to the legal requirement of sub-section (3) of section 407. Criminal Procedure Code being in stringent form, an affidavit should be and must be filed in support of the application for transfer, except when the application is made by the Advocate General. ( 42 ) THE other point relating to the legal requirement of sub-section (3) of section 407. Criminal Procedure Code being in stringent form, an affidavit should be and must be filed in support of the application for transfer, except when the application is made by the Advocate General. Admittedly, this transfer application (l. A. No. 3148 of 1980) has not been filed duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant and thus he failed to comply with the mandatory legal requirement of section 407 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. ( 43 ) AFFIDAVIT, which is required to be filed in support of the transfer application, is governed by the provisions of section. 297, Criminal Procedure Code. An application for transfer cannot be entertained if it is not supported by an affidavit and if the same is not recovered by section 297 Criminal Procedure Code. (See Suresh Kumar v. State and others12. ( 44 ) IN the instant case, since the applicant has not complied with the, provision of section 407 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, the application (l. A. No. 3148 of 1986) deserves to be rejected. ( 45 ) CONSEQUENTLY, from the discussion aforesaid, the transfer application (l. A. No. 3148 of 1986) is rejected. However, the application for cancellation of bail of accused/non-applicant No. 1 B. V. Karanth, succeeds and is hereby allowed and the bail granted to the accused by this court on 24. 6. 1986 is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal on or before 24. 12. 1986, failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal shall proceed against the accused and his surety according to law without making any reference to this court.