A. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) A Division Bench of this Court on 4th December, 2000 in connection with C. R. M. 3855 of 2000 to which one of us (Banerjee, J.) was a party, had granted Anticipatory Bail in favour of the petitioners (opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 herein) in connection with section "g" Case No. 620/2000 dated 23. 9. 2000 under sections 120b/408/406 of the Indian Penal Code upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners (opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 herein) on the condition that the petitioners, if arrested by the Police in connection with the instant case, shall be released on Bail of Rs. 5000/- with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Police Officer. ( 2 ) THIS application has been taken out on behalf of the defacto-complainant who figures as the petitioner in this application for cancellation of the said order. This application has been styled under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The main grievance of the petitioner in this application relates to dishonour of two cheques which were issued pursuant to a Memorandum of understanding arrived at by and between the parties in the post stage of the grant of Anticipatory Bail by a Division Bench of this Court. Learned counsel, appearing in support of this application, has addressed us at length with regard to the conduct of the accused-opposite parties in failing to honour their obligation by issuing two cheques which were bounced and as a result of which she submitted that the accused/persons have over reached the Court and had violated the terms of the Memorandum of understanding. She has referred to the "return" filed by the accused persons and also her reply thereto. She has taken a point that certain assertions have been made in the "return" which are not borne out of record and they tend to interfere with the administration of justice inasmuch as the averments therein were not correct. She has also referred to one decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjoy Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1795 wherein certain false averments have been made in the affidavits which were considered to be interfering with the course of justice. She has also referred to one decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjoy Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1795 wherein certain false averments have been made in the affidavits which were considered to be interfering with the course of justice. Relying on the said decision learned senior counsel submitted that the accused persons have practised deceit on this Court by giving two cheques which were dishonoured. ( 3 ) LEARNED advocate for the State has produced the case diary and showed that notice was sent to the complainant, but he did not co-operate with the investigation. He has further submitted that there is an allegation of tampering and/or interfering with the investigation of the case by the accused or missusing the liberty granted by the Court. ( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate for the accused persons (opposite parties No. 2 and 3 herein) has submitted that already the petitioners have surrendered and have obtained regular Bail from the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 7. 4. 2001. He has submitted that the application for cancellation of Anticipatory Bail does not merit any consideration as there is no allegation against the accused persons that they have interfered with the investigation of the case and/or otherwise misused the liberty granted by the Court and more so when they have surrendered and obtained regular bail, the application for cancellation of Anticipatory Bail is not otherwise maintainable. ( 5 ) AS a rejoinder, learned Associate counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the very fact of surrender of the accused parsons during the pendency of the cancellation of the Anticipatory Bail is itself a circumstance which should be taken note of by this Court. As according to him, they have virtually overreached themselves in the said process. ( 5 ) AS a rejoinder, learned Associate counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the very fact of surrender of the accused parsons during the pendency of the cancellation of the Anticipatory Bail is itself a circumstance which should be taken note of by this Court. As according to him, they have virtually overreached themselves in the said process. ( 6 ) HAVING carefully heard at great length the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and her associate counsel by way of supplement and considering the materials on record, particularly on very close scrutiny of the case diary and also the learned counsel for the State and the accused/opposite parties, we are of the view that the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party (Banerjee, J) has granted Anticipatory Bail to the accused opposite parties after hearing the State and considering the case diary as it reflects from the certified copy of the order dated 4th December, 2000 of the Division Bench. We are faced with twin problems as we have been confronted in this application. Firstly, we are of the view that in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for cancelling the order of bail which would include the order under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recall for that purpose. It is well settled by various decisions of the apex Court that there has to be cogent and overwhelming circumstances warranting interference with the order of bail already granted. We are unable to persuade ourselves from the materials on record that there exists even any such faint circumstance which would implore us to cancel the order earlier granted in favour of the accused persons. We have given a very close look at the case diary and we do not find any such circumstances, in favour of cancellation of the order exists. ( 7 ) THAT apart, as it has been rightly pointed out that pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench, the accused persons have already surrendered before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and were granted regular bail, in our view the application for cancellation of Anticipatory Baill loses much of its force as the original order of Anticipatory Baill becomes non-est by virtue of the order of regular bail passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The cancellation of the said order, in our opinion, does not arise. ( 8 ) THE submission of the learned associate counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of this application for cancellation of Anticipatory Bail, the accused persons should not have surrendered and obtained the regular bail does not impress us in any manner. We find from the order sheet of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta that on the basis of a put up petition the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate fixed the date of hearing and upon consideration of the case diary granted bail to the accused persons. This application made on behalf of the petitioner, in our view, does not merit any consideration. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not feel it proper to advert to the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner with regard to the submissions made in the return by the accused persons as per se the application on the aforesaid ground is not maintainable. We do not wish to adjudicate on the same and necessarily the decision of the apex Court referred to by her is not being considered. In the light of the discussion held hereinabove, we find no merit in the application and accordingly the application for cancellation of Anticipatory Bail is dismissed. Petition dismissed.