Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. Heard Mr. Singh, on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dayal, on behalf of the State and Mr. Shakil Ahmad, on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 and with their consent this application is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This application under Sec. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the informant with a prayer to cancel the order of bail given to Opposite Party No. 2 by the learned Vacation Judge, Saran, Chapra by order dated 5-11-1993 in Bail Petition No. 712 of 1993. 3. Pursuant to order dated 28-2-1994, letter of D.I.G., Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur has been received which is at Flag-P. It appears from the letter dated 9-5-1994 that there is no report of Sri V.D. Ram, the D.I.G. in the office of the D.I.G., Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from mere perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the learned court below has not properly appreciated the case of the prosecution. It is urged that having found that the Opposite Party No. 2 Ashok Singh with the aid of other accused persons as well as with the help of armed guards overpowered the petitioner and by forcibly confining him brought to the station for no justification, should not have opined that only offence under Secs. 342 and 323, IPC were made out, rather the learned court below should have held that a clear case under Sec. 364 IPC has been made out. 5. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that after having released on bail the Opposite Party No. 2 went to the village of the informant-petitioner along with his associates and held out all sorts of threats to the petitioner and his family members. It is alleged that opposite party No. 2 also had given threat to three witnesses, namely, Kirshna Singh, Abhay Singh and Prem Chandra Singh. Referring to Annexure-6, it is submitted that on such threat being given, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-charge of Naya Gaon Police Station and Station entry dated 28-11-1993 was made. 6. In the supplementary affidavit as well as in the main petition, the petitioner has also alleged about some dereliction of duties on the part of the Investigating Officer. 6. In the supplementary affidavit as well as in the main petition, the petitioner has also alleged about some dereliction of duties on the part of the Investigating Officer. It is also alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2 is a notorious criminal having many cases against him. In this background, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail order passed in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 by the learned vacation judge should be cancelled. 7. Mr. Kameshwar Dayal, learned Counsel for the State has firstly raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this application. Referring to Sub-clause (5) of Sec. 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has submitted that the petitioner should have moved the learned Sessions Judge at Saran for cancellation of the order of bail inasmuch as, Sec. 437(5) contemplates that any court which has released a person on bail under Sub-section (1) or (2) may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody. On merit, Mr. Dayal has submitted that the Police investigated the matter and the case was supervised by the Superintendent of Police and after supervision, the S.P. directed for filing charged-sheet under Secs. 341 and 323 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge before granting bail had gone through the case diary and was prima facie satisfied that no case under Secs. 364 and 379 was made out and as such this Court should not interfere with the impugned order very lightly. Regarding threat to the witnesses as submitted on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dayal has contended that mere filing of a sanaha is not sufficient to hold that there was actual threat to the witnesses. He submits that if actually threat was going by the Opposite Party No. 2, he should have given the threat to Anil Singh who was the alleged eyewitness and was accompanying the informant on his motor cycle. 8. Mr. Shakil Ahmad while adopting the argument of Mr. Dayal has submitted that the informant has tried to make out a case of grievous nature when after proper investigation and supervision, the police found that it is a case under Section 341 and other minor sections of the Penal Code. 8. Mr. Shakil Ahmad while adopting the argument of Mr. Dayal has submitted that the informant has tried to make out a case of grievous nature when after proper investigation and supervision, the police found that it is a case under Section 341 and other minor sections of the Penal Code. He submits further that the learned vacation Judge after going through the case diary has come to a conclusion that prima facie no case under Secs. 304 and 379, IPC was made out. It is asserted that for this incident a separate case, namely, P.S. Case No. 81/93 under Secs. 25 (a)(b), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act was also registered against the Opposite Party No. 3, but this Court has granted bail to Opposite Party No. 2 in that case. This fact has not been controverted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ahmad has also submitted that the Opposite Party No. 2 having a political career has been falsely implicated in criminal cases and in most of the cases he has been granted bail. learned Counsel is not in a position to controvert this assertion too. 9. It is now well-settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court that bail granted under Sec. 437(1) or (2) or 439(1) can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempt to make himself scare by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The Apex Court in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai V/s. State of Maharashtra -- while cataloging the aforesaid ingredients for cancelling the bail order has observed that "It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to." Their Lordships further observed that: It is easer to report to bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail once granted. That is because cancellation of bail interferes with the liberty already secured by the accused either on the exercise of discretion by the court or by the thrust of law. Power to take back in custody an accused, observed the Apex Court, who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. Their Lordships, however, were of the opinion that the does not mean that the power though extraordinary in character must not be exercised even if the ends of justice so demand. 10 In this backdrop of settled principle of law, as aforesaid, I may refer to the grounds for cancellation raised on behalf of the petitioner. From the order of the learned vocation Judge dated 5-11-1993 it appears that while releasing the Opposite Party No. 2 on bail, he has not only perused the F.I.R. but also the case diary. After going through the case diary, he was prima facie satisfied from the statements of the prosecution witnesses before the Investigating Officer that offence under Secs. 364 and 379, as alleged by the informant was not made out. The learned court below has taken note of the fact that the Opposite Party No. 2 did misuse his power as well as the armed guards by forcibly confining the informant and bringing him to the police station which was without any jurisdiction. But from the statement of the witnesses recorded in the case diary he was satisfied that it is a case under Secs. 342 and 232 and not under any non-bailable offence. I find that the Superintendent of Police has also supervised the case and directed to file a charge sheet not under Sec. 364 or 379 but under Secs. 341, 323 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet actually has been filed under those sections. This fact also shows that prima facie satisfaction of the learned court below was hot an error or records. As far as tampering with the evidence by threat to the prosecution witnesses, I fail to understand that if Opposite Party No. 2 was to give threat to the prosecution witnesses why he would not have given threat to Anil Singh who is alleged to be the eye-witness ad Pas accompanying the informant. As far as tampering with the evidence by threat to the prosecution witnesses, I fail to understand that if Opposite Party No. 2 was to give threat to the prosecution witnesses why he would not have given threat to Anil Singh who is alleged to be the eye-witness ad Pas accompanying the informant. It is true that petitioner lodged an information on the basis of which a samara entry was entered into but that by itself cannot be a ground to hold that the Opposite Party No. 2 had actually given any threat. It is pertinent to mention in this connection that the Criminal Misc. application was filed on 26-11-1993 and the supplementary affidavit was filed on 15-12-1993. Paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit shows that sanba entry was made on 28-11-1993 i.e., two days after filing of Criminal Misc. application. Till date nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to show that after 28-11-1993 any overt Act has been committed by the Opposite Party No. 2 for tampering with the evidences. Regarding criminal antecedents of the Opposite Party No. 2 as it reveals from the records that in almost all the cases, he has been granted bail. 11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that when Opposite Party No. 2 has already been released on bail by the impugned order, his bail order cannot be cancelled. 12. In such view of the matter, I find no merit in this application and it is dismissed, accordingly. The office is directed to send down the case diary forthwith.