JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application for cancellation of bail filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. against the bail granted to non-petitioner No. 2 Ramrai by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur Distt., Jaipur vide its order dated 1.8.1986. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. O. P. Gupta has pointed that the F.I.R. No. 118/86 dated 14.7.86 was lodged by the petitioner stating therein that his daughter deceased Prem, who had married 3-4 years earlier to the non-petitioner No. 2 has died on account of falling down in the well. It was also alleged that she was maltreated by her husband and other members of the family and that a doubt was expressed that she has been murdered and thereafter thrown into the well. After arrest of the accused an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was filed before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur Distt., Jaipur for grant of bail inter alia, on the ground that the non-petitioner No. 2 was in judicial custody and in the facts and circumstances of the case it was just and proper to release him on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court has grossly erred in granting bail to the non-petitioner No. 2 as this was a clear case of murder and in such serious offences, the bail should not have been granted while the investigation is still in progress. He has drawn my attention to the case Pokar Ram v. State of Raj. (1985 Cr.L.R. (SC) 265) , in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have referred to certain other decisions of the Apex Court of the country and have drawn attention to the distinction to be made between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail. It has been pointed out that very compelling circumstances may be made out for granting bail to a person accused of the offence of murder, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. when the investigation is still in progress. This was a case in which anticipatory bail was granted to a person accused of the offence of murder by the learned Sessions Judge while investigation was in progress, against which an application of the bail was filed in this court, which was rejected. This was a case in which anticipatory bail was granted to a person accused of the offence of murder by the learned Sessions Judge while investigation was in progress, against which an application of the bail was filed in this court, which was rejected. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, therefore pointed out the differences between the consideration of application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail and the one filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., while the accused is already in custody and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused. It was also observed that if such order was allowed to stand, in which person accused of committing offence of murder was promptly given the benefit of anticipatory bail at asking, the faith of public in administration of justice is likely to be shaken. 4. Mr. Gaffar Ali appearing for the non-petitioner No. 2 has on the other hand pointed out that in the present case, the non-petitioner has been granted bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. after he was arrested and was in judicial custody. Therefore, the bail once granted to the non-petitioner should be cancelled only on grounds that the accused is likely to abuse the discretion granted to him in his favour by tampering with the evidence influencing the witnesses or is likely to abscond and will not be available during trial. He has pointed out that there is no such allegation or evidence on record from which such inference can be drawn. He has drawn my attention to the cases of Bhagirath Singh Jedeja v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1984 SC 372 ) , Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. State ( AIR 1978 S.C. 179 ) and Chandan Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan (1978 (2) W.L.N. 1) , in which above principles have been laid down. 5. I have heard both the parties and have also gone through the case diary. This is an application for cancelling of bail, which was granted u/s 439 Cr. P.C. and not u/s 438 Cr. P.C. A distinction has to be drawn between the two applications, because while in an application filed u/s 438 Cr. P.C. the same is granted in anticipision of arrest while the other is granted after arrest. When application is granted u/s 439 Cr. P.C. and not u/s 438 Cr. P.C. A distinction has to be drawn between the two applications, because while in an application filed u/s 438 Cr. P.C. the same is granted in anticipision of arrest while the other is granted after arrest. When application is granted u/s 439 Cr. P.C., the considerations for cancellation of the same are now well-known and the cancelling should be made only when one of the grounds mentioned above is in existence. The bail once granted u/s 439 Cr. P.C. should not be cancelled merely on the vague allegations of tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The case of Pokar Ram (supra) is therefore, not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. In the result I find no just and proper ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge while granting application u/s 439 Cr. P.C. Consequently, the application for cancellation of bail is dismissed.Application rejected. *******