JUDGMENT 1. - Instant criminal revision impugns the order dated September 25, 1997 of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dausa, whereby the application under section 439 (2) Cr.PC. moved by the petitioners for cancellation of bail of non-petitioner No.2 Mst. Farida was dismissed. 2. Brief resume of the facts is that FIR came to be lodged against the non-petitioner No.2 Farida on July 24, 1994 with the Police Station Dausa by the informant Tahir Hussain. A case under Sections 147, 323, 307, 448 and 379 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. It appears that Mst. Farida, moved an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge Dausa, as well as before the Court, but she was not granted bail. Second bail application bearing No. 4160 of 1994 under Section 438 Cr.RC. was moved by Mst. Farida but it was also rejected by this court on September 2, 1994. However, the Police Station Dausa after completing investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 325, 323/34 IPC and Mst. Farida was released on bail as ail the said offences were bailable. 3. On December 9, 1994 an application was moved by the Additional Public Prosecutor to the effect that cognizance under section 307 IPC. ought to have been taken. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Dausa vide its order dated March 12, 1996 returned the charger sheet back to the investigating officer with the direction to file a fresh charge sheet after proper investigation. Thereafter the learned Public Prosecutor moved an application for cancellation of bail granted to Mst. Farida. In the said application it was averred that as the investigating agency was of the view that Mst. Farida committed offences under sections 344, 325, 323/34 IPC She was released on bail by the investigating officer on May 6, 1994 and the learned trial court also released her on bail on the said ground. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated June 19. 1996 dismissed the application of the Additional Public Prosecutor. Thereafter the petitioners Kallu Khan and Tahir Hussain moved application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. before the learned Special judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dausa, but the learned Judge dismissed the application vide order dated September 25, 1997. Against this order that the present action for filing the revision has been resorted to by the petitioners Kallu Khan and Tahir Hussain. 4. Against this order that the present action for filing the revision has been resorted to by the petitioners Kallu Khan and Tahir Hussain. 4. I have heard Mr. Ravi Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.L. Goyal, Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Rajeev Surana and Mr. Hemant Singh, learned counsel appearing as intervenors and carefully perused the impugned order as well as the case law cited before me. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor canvassed that bail can be cancelled in view of the ratio propounded in 1986 RLR 1027, 1992 Cr.L.J. 1527, 1988 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 689 and 1987 RCC 347. 6. Mr. Ravi Kasliwal also placed reliance on AIR 1936 Sind page 187 and AIR 1933 Sind page 331. Whereas Mr. Hemant Singh placed reliance on 1988 RCC 534, 1974 Cr.L.J. 526 and AIR 1978 SC page 17 and canvassed that bail once granted cannot be cancelled. 7. Mr. Rajeev Surana, learned counsel placed reliance on 1996 (4) SC and 1994 (5) SCC 146. 8. From a perusal of ratio propounded in the authorities cited before me two views are possible. According to first view, the bail once granted in bailable offence can be cancelled if subsequently the offence is found non-bailable. Whereas the second view is that if the accused is granted bail in bailable offence, the bail cannot be cancelled even after the conversion of the said case into non-bailable one. 9. In Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1993 SC page 1) their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that once an accused is released on bail under section 167 (2) Cr.RC. he cannot be taken back in custody merely in the filing of a charge sheet, but there must exist special reasons for so doing besides the fact that the charge sheet reveals the commission of a non-bailable offence. 10. Babu Bombaj v. State of Rajasthan (1986 RLR page 1027) was the case where bail was granted to the accused by the Investigating Officer in a case registered for bailable offence under section 324 IPC and subsequently the offence was converted under section 326 IPC, which was non-bailable offence. It was observed that Investigating Officer could cancel the bail and he had powers to rearrest the accused after conversion of the offence into non-bailable warrant. 11. It was observed that Investigating Officer could cancel the bail and he had powers to rearrest the accused after conversion of the offence into non-bailable warrant. 11. In Gheesha v. State of Rajasthan, (1988 RLR II page 303) the accused was released on bail in bailable offence but subsequently after reinvestigation the challan was filed for non-bailable offence, it was held that bail granted by the Investigating Officer could not have been cancelled. 12. Under sub-section (5) of section 437 Cr.PC. any court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody. 13. Where there is serious apprehension of the prosecution with regard to tampering with the eye witnesses, the bail can be cancelled. Here there are no such allegations against Mr. Farida. 14. In Aslam Babalal Desai (supra) in para No. 15 it was indicated thus- "15. Even where two views are possible this being a matter belonging to the field of criminal justice involving the liberty of an individual, the provision must be construed strictly in favour of individual liberty since even the law expects early completion of the investigation. The delay in completion of the investigation can be on the pain of the accused being released on bail. The prosecution can not be allowed to trifle with individual liberty if it does not take its task seriously and does not complete it within the time allowed by law. It would also result in avoidable difficulty to the accused if the latter is asked to secure a surety and a few days later be placed behind the bars at the sweet will of the prosecution on production of a charge sheet. We are, therefore, of the view that unless there are strong grounds for cancellation of the bail, the bail once granted can not be cancelled on mere production of the charge sheet." 15. In the case on hand I do not see any strong ground for cancellation of bail. Production of charge sheet in a bailable offence after releasing the accused Farida on Bail was not the fault of Mst. Farida and even after reinvestigation if the charge sheet under section 307 IPC is fill then also it will not be in the interest of justice to send her behind the bars after cancelling her bail. Production of charge sheet in a bailable offence after releasing the accused Farida on Bail was not the fault of Mst. Farida and even after reinvestigation if the charge sheet under section 307 IPC is fill then also it will not be in the interest of justice to send her behind the bars after cancelling her bail. It will not therefore be in the interest of justice to make interference under section 482 Cr.RC. in the impugned order. Therefore the impugned order passed by the learned court below does not call for any interference. 16. Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed. *******