Judgment ( 1. ) THIS application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed seeking cancellation of order of bail dated 8-12-2000 passed by J. M. F. C. , Jabalpur in favour of non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5. ( 2. ) A perusal of aforesaid impugned order reveals that against non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5, Crime No. 524/2000 was registered at Police Station, Belbag, District Jabalpur, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 294 of the IPC. These non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5 were released on bail by police on account of all the aforesaid offences being bailable. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC was added to the link of aforesaid offences on account of death of Ranno, the victim and hence by cancelling the earlier bail, police of Belbag took all the non-applicant Nos, 2 to 5 in custody and produced before the J. M. F. C. for seeking judicial remand. One co-accused Raju alias Salim was already an judicial custody since 3-12-2000. After dictating the order of remand of non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5, to judicial custody till 13th December, 2000, the learned J. M. F. C. allowed the bail application filed on behalf of non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5, and ordered their release recording following grounds:- -. . (Vernacular Text Omitted ). . ( 3. ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that keeping in view the allegations levelled against non-applicant Nos, 2 to 5, the order of grant of bail may be said to have been passed by ignoring material evidence on record and in wrong exercise of discretion. My attention is drawn to Puran v. Rambilas, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2023 . In support of this argument that if on ignoring the material evidence on record, a bail order is passed in wrong exercise of discretion, the same is liable to be cancelled. The relevant portion of aforesaid pronouncement of Honble the Supreme Court is as follows :-- "generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. However, these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. However, these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of the nature like bridge burning and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the Trial Court has to be corrected. " It is also found explained by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that "the concept of setting aside the unjustified illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. " ( 4. ) NOW, I proceed to consider the material which was on record against non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5 on the date of impugned bail order. ( 5. ) IT is noted that in police statements of Shamim Bi, the mother of deceased Ranno and the other witnesses Lalla, Kaushar, Gulshan and Naseem Bano, so also in the dying declaration of Ranno, all the four non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are stated to have given beating to Ranno and her mother with intent to compel them to agree for the marriage of Ranno with one Raju or to send Ranno to Bombay as a sex worker. Under these circumstances, Ranno is stated to have run into the room and committed suicide. ( 6. ) THUS, it is noted that the learned J. M. F. C. is found to have granted bail to non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5 by ignoring the aforesaid material, which was on record and is found to have passed the order in wrong exercise of discretion, which deserves to be set aside. ( 7. ) THUS, this petition is allowed and order dated 8-12-2000 passed by J. M. F. C. so far as it relates to grant of bail to non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5, is set aside.