Judgment : A. RAMAMURTHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the memorandum of Grounds in Cr1. O. P. No. 8029/99 on the file of the High Court and the order of this Court dated 11-5-1999 and make in Cr1. O. P. No. 8029/99, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C. Duraipandian, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. T. Sudanthiram. Advocate for the 1st respondent and of Mr. N. R. Elango, Government, Advocate (cr1. side) on behalf of the 2nd respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order: Petition filed to cancel the bail granted to the first respondent in Cr1. O. P. No. 8029/99 dated 11-5- 1999 by this Court. ( 2 ) THE case in brief is as follows: The petitioner is the Director in charge of Sri Gokulam Chit and Finance Company. The first respondent was working as Manager in Kellys branch. He committed misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 67 lakhs and after investigation he was arrested and later enlarged on bail on 11-5-1999. The first respondent with his henchmen visited the office on 24-6-1999 and intimated the petitioner to withdraw the complaint. He also attempted to tamper the other witnesses by establishing contacts with the staff, there are many other clients who had paid the money without taking proper receipts from the first respondent. The first respondent also visited the house of the petitioner together with rowdy elements and threatened him and his family with dire consequences on 26-6-1999 for not withdrawing the complaint filed. Moreover, the first respondent already filed the bail application Cr1. M. P. 932/99 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 65-1999 and the same was posted on 115-1999 for orders. During the pendency of the said petition itself, he filed another bail application before this court on 10-5-1999 by suppressing the earlier application pending before the learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. ( 3 ) THE first respondent filed a counter denting the various allegations relating to the misappropriation. He also denied the allegation about the alleged threatening on. 24-6-1999 and 26-6-1999. The petitioner is only a de-facto complaint and he had no right to file any application to cancel the bail granted by this Court. ( 3 ) THE first respondent filed a counter denting the various allegations relating to the misappropriation. He also denied the allegation about the alleged threatening on. 24-6-1999 and 26-6-1999. The petitioner is only a de-facto complaint and he had no right to file any application to cancel the bail granted by this Court. When the first respondent was in prison, his brother was making arrangements for bail and similarly his father-in-law was taking steps to move for bail and because of this only, there were two petitions pending in two different Courts and it was unintentional. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed. ( 4 ) LEARNED Government Advocate (criminal side) stated that complaint has been given by the petitioner relating to the alleged threatening and it was registered as a petition and enquiry is pending. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel of all parties. ( 6 ) THERE is no dispute that the first respondent was working as Manager in the Kellys Branch of Sri Gokulam Chit and Finance Company, The petitioner, who was Director in charge of the said Company, has given the complaint against the first respondent for alleged offence under Section 408, IPC alleging that he had committed misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 67 lakhs. On the basis of the complaint, the 2nd respondent arrested the first respondent and remanded to custody. Ultimately, the first respondent was released on bail by this Court in Cr1. O. P. 8029/99 dated 11-5-1999. Now, the petitioner has filed this application to cancel the bail on two grounds. The first ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after release on bail, the first respondent came to the office with hencemen and threatened him to withdraw the complaint or else, he has to face with dire consequences. Again, on 26-6-1999, the first respondent with his henchmen went to the house of the petitioner and threatened not only the petitioner but the other family members with a similar threat. The petitioner has given complaint with the 2nd respondent and according to the learned Government, Advocate, petition enquiry is pending. The second ground raised by the petitioner is that the first respondent had suppressed the pendency of the bail application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and filed another petition for the same relied before this Court in cr1. The petitioner has given complaint with the 2nd respondent and according to the learned Government, Advocate, petition enquiry is pending. The second ground raised by the petitioner is that the first respondent had suppressed the pendency of the bail application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and filed another petition for the same relied before this Court in cr1. O. P. 8029/99 and got an order in both Courts. In short, the suppression of the pendency of one application before this Court amounts to an abuse of process of law. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the first respondent stated that the first respondent never threatened the petitioner or his family members either in the office or in the residence. They were invented only for the purpose of filing the petition to cancel the bail. So far as the other ground, according to the learned Counsel for the first respondent, when he was in custody, his father-in-law and his brother took steps to get him out and it was unintentional. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the first respondent relied upon the decision in Sardeia Damodar v. State of A. P. , wherein it is observed that the complainant or the relations or interested persons of deceased victim have no locus standi to file an application for cancellation of bail. Now, it is stated that the petitioner has given the complaint against the first respondent with the 2nd respondent. However, the State has not chosen to file any application for cancellation of bail and only petition enquiry is pending and it is not made clear whether the alleged threatening is true or not. ( 9 ) IT has been held in Mohan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, that reversal of bail already granted, on the ground that accused did not disclose to the Sessions Court that he had moved for bail in the High Court also and it was held, reversal was improper. This decision is applicable to the case on hand. Although the suppression on the part of the first respondent cannot be appreciated, now the explanation given by the first respondent in suppressing, the pendency of a bail application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and simultaneously moved the bail before this Court is not in good taste and it is a condemnable one. Although the suppression on the part of the first respondent cannot be appreciated, now the explanation given by the first respondent in suppressing, the pendency of a bail application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and simultaneously moved the bail before this Court is not in good taste and it is a condemnable one. However, I am of the view that this is not a strong ground to cancel the bail, but it only exposes the conduct of the first respondent and his men. ( 10 ) RELIANCE was also placed upon another decision of the Apex Court in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra. wherein it is observed that the grounds for cancellation of bail under Sections 437 (5) and 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are identical and it 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) threatened witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth - investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his feeling to another country. (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going under-ground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency. (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. 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. This decision is also applicable to the case on hand in all fours. ( 11 ) IT is necessary to state that already two complaints have been lodged by the petitioner before the second respondent relating to the alleged threatening by the first respondent and the matters are pending enquiry. It is not made clear whether the alleged threatening is a true one or the petitioner has invented only for the purpose of filing this application. It is just and necessary that the 2nd respondent should be directed enquire into the complaints and find out whether there is any basis or truth in the same and till that is done. It is not made clear whether the alleged threatening is a true one or the petitioner has invented only for the purpose of filing this application. It is just and necessary that the 2nd respondent should be directed enquire into the complaints and find out whether there is any basis or truth in the same and till that is done. I am of the view that the first respondent should be kept outside for some period so as to enable the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry and come to a conclusion within a period of six weeks. ( 12 ) HENCE the first respondent is directed to remain at Chengalpattu and report before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu on all working days at 10. 00 a. m. and 5. 00 p. m. for a period 9f six weeks, and within the said period the 2nd respondent is directed to enquire about the complaints said to have been given by the petitioner and dispose the same in accordance with law. Petition is, ordered accordingly. Order accordingly.