JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—These two petitions (Cr. Revision No. 22 of 1989, State v. Nand Lal and Cr. Revision No. 27 of 1989, State v. Satdev Sharma) have been filed by the State. It has grievance against the order of bail allowed to the accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Simla, on 4-3-1989 in a case under sections 376/354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not necessary to mention the facts of the case in detail as the grievance of the State is confined to the seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused. 2. Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the State, has very seriously assailed the impugned order. The statement of the prosecutrix as well as that of Rajkumar was read in extenso to highlight the seriousness of the offence. 3. Perusal of the petitions disclose that except the seriousness of the case, no other post-release misconduct on the part of the accused has been complained. 4. The order of the Sessions Judge discloses thorough probe into the matter. Every aspect of the case has been discussed and it is not necessary to reiterate many of the facts which if done may not prejudice the fair trial of the case. 5. It is well established that different considerations prevail when an application for the cancellation of the bail is moved. The Court has to be careful to see that the liberty once allowed to the accused by way of grant of bail is not hampered except where supervening facts are brought to the notice of the Court. Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, has not complained about any misconduct on the part of the accused in the form of their not assisting in the investigation of this case or their tampering with the prosecution evidence or their intimidating the prosecution witnesses or their efforts to run away from the ultimate trial of the case, which the learned Counsel asserts, has not yet started as some report from the Chemical Analyst is still to be received. 6. Shri T. R, Chandel, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, seeks assistance from 1984 (1) Crimes 334, Bhagirath. 6. Shri T. R, Chandel, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, seeks assistance from 1984 (1) Crimes 334, Bhagirath. Singh v. The State of Gujarat, and submits that in the absence of misconduct on the part of the accused, this Court should not, at this stage, cancel the bail and further the learned Sessions Judge once having exercised the discretion after hearing the parties, the same should not be set-aside by the cancellation of 3the bail. There is substance in these submissions of the learned Counsel for the accused. 7. In view of my observations above, I see no merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.