JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party. 2. An unfortunate incident has compelled the petitioner to knock the door of this Court seeking justice. Shortly stated, the petitioner along with two others being charged under Sections 498A/109/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were arrested and produced before the SDJM, Udala, and filed a petition before the SDJM for their release. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate allowed their prayer on certain conditions that : (i) to appear before the I. O. on each Sunday and Thursday as and when required by the I. O., and (ii) not to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. This order was passed on 19-9-1994 and, as borne out from the record the accused persons obeyed the conditions till 27-10-1994. Three days thereafter, the I. O. moved the Magistrate on 1-11-1994 for cancellation of the bail. Three affidavits were also filed alleging that the witnesses were threatened by the accused persons. It need be mentioned that on the very day of seeking cancellation of bail, a petition supported by affidavits was also filed by the petitioners alleging against highhanded action of the I. O. Unfortunately, these affidavits ware not at all considered when the learned Magistrate accepting the I. O.'s prayer cancelled the bail vide order dated 21-11-1994. There is no dispute about the legal proposition that concellation of bail is to be exercised if sufficient materials are brought to the notice of the Court that the accused persons have misused their liberty. In the case at hand, the learned Magistrate accepted the affidavits of the witnesses without testing the veracity of the allegations made therein. 3. In view of my discussions made above. I would hold that the learned Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction illegally and curtailed liberty of the accused persons who were already granted bail. 4. In the result the impugned order of cancellation of bail is set aside. It is submitted that one of the accused persons, namely, Chakradhar Hota has been taken into custody in the meantime by virtue of the order of cancellation of bail. He be released forthwith on the strength of bail bond which he executed earlier. 4. In the result the impugned order of cancellation of bail is set aside. It is submitted that one of the accused persons, namely, Chakradhar Hota has been taken into custody in the meantime by virtue of the order of cancellation of bail. He be released forthwith on the strength of bail bond which he executed earlier. I may further observe that since the accused persons have made allegations against the Officer-in-charge, Khunta Police Station, the accused person shall appear before the Inspector-in-charge of Udala P.S. for a period of three months or till the end of investigation whichever is earlier. Further, the prosecution is at liberty to move the Court below for cancellation of bail, if the accused persons tamper with the evidence. 5. In the above light, the Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of.