Honble D.C. DALELA, J. – In the case arising out of the F.I.R. No. 27/95, of Police Station, Surajpol the accusation against the accused- petitioners is for the offence under sections 498, 292A, 384, 406, 506 and 120- B.I.P.C. (2). The case is under investigation. (3). The prosecution allegations are that the complainants two daugh ters were married to the accused- petitioners No. 3 & 4, who are the sons of parents accused- petitioners No. 1 & 2, that at the time of marriage dowry was demanded by the accused- petitioners No. 1 & 2 and further demand came after the marriage, that a Maruti car for each couple and a marble mine was demanded and the wives were harassed and subjected to cruelty with a view to coerce them or their father to meet their said demands, and the husbands instead of protecting their wives also joined hands in harassment and cruel treatment, that photographs of the wives were taken in nude and wives and their father were threatened to meet their demand failing which the nude photographs of the ladies would be published and that the relationship has become so strained that the parties had to take shelter in the family court. (4). The learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur granted anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners on 30-8-95. Subsequently the prosecution moved the Sessions Court for the cancellation of the bail and by the order dated 9.1.96 the anticipatory bail granted on 30.8.95 was cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge. Aggrieved by this, the accused petitioners have preferred this revision. (5). I have heard the arguments of both the sides. (6). In the case Delhi Administration vs. Sanjay Gandhi (1) the Apex Court has observed as under:– ``Section 439(2) of the Criminal P.C. confers jurisdiction on the High Court or Court of Sessions to direct that any person who has been released on bail under Chap. XXXIII be arrested and committed to custody. The power to take back in custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. But the power, though of an extra-ordinary nature, is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases where, by a preponderance of probabilities, it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses. But the power, though of an extra-ordinary nature, is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases where, by a preponderance of probabilities, it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses. Refusal to exercise that wholesome power in such cases, few though they may be, will reduce it to a dead letter and will suffer the courts to be silent spectators to the subversion of the judicial process. We might as well wind up the Courts and bolt their doors against all than permit a few to ensure that justice shall not be done. (7). From the affidavits of the witnesses Niranjan Kapoor, Kavita Kapoor, Sneh Lata and Shobhana filed before the learned Sessions Judge and the photo stat copies whereof have been shown to me in the court during the course of arguments, it is clearly indicated that after the grant of anticipatory bail the petitioners threatened the said witnesses not to depose against them. It is true that the contents of these affidavits have been denied by the petitioners in their counter affidavits filed before the learned Sessions Judge. The copies of these counter affidavits have also been shown to me in the court during the course of arguments. But in the case diary dated 2.9.95, it has been mentioned that the complainant has reported to the Investigation Officer that the petitioner No.1 had threatened him, on phone that he and his sons have been granted bail and now they would see him. Again in the diary dated 7.9.95 a reference has been made that the complainant approached the Investigation Officer to report that the accused- petitioners No. 1 & 3 have threatened him with the dire consequences if any evidence is given against them. Thus, the affidavits filed by the said witnesses find support from the case diary. In her affidavit witness Shobhana has stated that on 12.9.95 also the accused petitioner No. 3 has threatened her to publish her nude photographs if anything is done or stated against him, and other accused persons in the court or in the police. This threatening of 12.9.95 has not been denied or rebutted in the counter affidavits of the petitioners. Thus the probabilities-factor achoes in favour of the versions narrated in the affidavits of the witnesses. This threatening of 12.9.95 has not been denied or rebutted in the counter affidavits of the petitioners. Thus the probabilities-factor achoes in favour of the versions narrated in the affidavits of the witnesses. It is thus sufficiently established that the petitioners have directly or indirectly made threats to the said prosecution witnesses to dissuade them from disclosing the facts with which they are acquainted to the court or police. Under the circumstances, the anticipatory bail granted deserved to be cancelled and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly cancelled the bail. No. case is made out for interference in the order of the learned trial court in exercise of the revisional power. (8). Besides, there is also another aspect in the matter. Ill- treatment of women is a grave social crime, which outrages the modern conscience. The offence under section 498-A I.P.C. is, therefore, an anti-social crime and deserves to be dealt with strictly. Soft justice in such cases is required to be avoided. (It seems that the crimes against women has spurted up in recent years and the time has not come when a clear message is required to be sent to those men folk, who think that they can illtreate or kill their wives and get away with it, that they can not claim larger regard than the defence of society and wornan hood itself at the hands of law. The provisions of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. can certainly not be pressed and come to the aid as an arm to the person who commits a wrong against womanhood and outrageous assault on the society. In the cases of crimes against women such as inter alia the offence under section 498 A I.P.C. the normal procedure of investigation and arrest should be allowed to take place and it should not be circumvented by the grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr. P.C., because such grant of bail would have demoralising effect in the society and the interest of the society is an important consideration in such matters. (9). Therefore, if allowing the revision petition has the effect of restoration of the anticipatory bail, which should not have been granted then the petition should not be allowed otherwise the faith of the public in administration of justice is likely to be shaken. (9). Therefore, if allowing the revision petition has the effect of restoration of the anticipatory bail, which should not have been granted then the petition should not be allowed otherwise the faith of the public in administration of justice is likely to be shaken. In this aspect of the matter also the revision petition does not deserve to be allowed. (10). In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.