JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-non-petitioner Raja Ram was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 7.12.92. The bail was granted mainly on the basis of the affidavit of his father to the effect that he was serving in the Indian Military from the last 10 years and presently he was on duty there. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved this application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the bail was obtained by making a false affidavit before this Court. A notice was given to the accused-non-petitioner Raja Ram and after service he appeared through Shri G.C. Chatterjee, Advocate on 14.11.94. When the case was listed on 14.11.94 Mr. Chatterjee sought an adjournment, presumably, that the reply may be filed and the matter was ordered to be listed after two weeks. The matter was lited thereafter on 9.12.94 and on a joint prayer it was ordered to be listed after winter break. On 9.1.95 request was made on behalf of Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the accused-non-petitioner, and again on 16.1.95 two weeks time was sought by Mr. Chatterjee. Again on 7.295 a short adjournment was sought by Mr. Chatterjee and on 17.2.95 four weeks time was sought on behalf of Mr. Chatterjee 3. Mr. Chaterjee appearing for accused-non-petitioner makes a statement before this Court that inspite of repeated intimation to the accused, he has not turned-up to file the reply to the application for cancellation of bail and to the application for cancellation of bail and to explain as to under what circumstances affidavit of his father was filed. Mr. Chatterjee has further stated that inspite of his best efforts, the accused-non-petitioner is not coming forward and he is not in a position to controvert the facts mentioned in the application. 4. I have been informed that the case is now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarbas District Alwar. For the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that the accused-non-petitioner has obtained bail from this Court on the basis of false averment made by his father in his affidavit and as such, the order granting anticipatory bail by me on 7.12.92 deserves to be recalled. It is more necessary because no persons should be allowed to take any benefit on the basis of false statement. It is more necessary because no persons should be allowed to take any benefit on the basis of false statement. I, therefore, recall the order granting anticipatory to the accused-non- petitioner vide order dated 7.12.92 and direct the trial Court that he should immediately be taken in custody. After his arrest, he shall be free to move fresh application for his bail under Section 437/439 Cr.PC. and if he does so, it shall be decided by the said Court in accordance with law. 5. The application is allowed, as indicated above. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court immediately for compliance.Application allowed. *******