JUDGMENT 1. - This application for cancellation of bail u/s. 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeks cancellation of bail order dated 12.4.2002 granting anticipatory bail to the non-petitioner Chhanga by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Deeg in Cr. Misc. Application No. 123/02 arising out of FIR No. 127/02 RS. Deeg for the offences u/ss. 323, 341, 354, 379 and 376 IPC. 2. The relevant facts are that a written report was lodged by Smt. Rajeshwari at RS. Deeg on 3.3.2002 to the effect that on 2.3.2002 at 5.00 p.m., she had gone to fetch water from the well, Chhanga, the accused came from the front and hugged her from behind. When she resisted, he caused injuries to her on her hands and back etc. On her crying, Mst. Meena came and rescued her. Non-petitioner Chhanga went away from there after snatching her silver chain. Thereafter she made another report on 5.3.2002 to the S.R Bharatpur wherein she stated that on 2.3.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. she had gone to fetch water from the well, the non-petitioner accused Chhanga emerged out of mustard field where he threw her on the ground and committed rape with her. She received abrasions on her feet. On her raising hue and cry Mst. Meena and Supriya came running and on seeing them, non-petitioner Chhanga ran away. 3. The non-petitioner No. 2 moved an application for anticipatory bail u/s. 438 Cr.RC. before the learned Addi. District & Session Judge, Deeg who after hearing the parties and upon a perusal of the record granted him anticipatory bail vide impugned order. The complainant has, therefore, filed this application for cancellation of the said order. 4. Notices of the application were given to the learned RP as well as to the non-petitioner No. 2. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the scope of Section 438 Cr.RC. is quite limited and anticipatory bail can be granted only where accused has been raped in falsely in order to slight or humiliate him due to political rivalry. According to him the prosecutrix has in her statement recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C, dearly implicated non-petitioner No, 2 for having committed rape with her and the learned Addl. is quite limited and anticipatory bail can be granted only where accused has been raped in falsely in order to slight or humiliate him due to political rivalry. According to him the prosecutrix has in her statement recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C, dearly implicated non-petitioner No, 2 for having committed rape with her and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has unjustifiably granted him anticipatory bail only on the ground of certain minor discrepancies in the two reports made by her and .her statements recorded u/s. 161 and 164 Cr.RC. He has also submitted that it is a social offence. The learned court below has not considered the factum of injuries having been received by the prosecutrix during the course of occurrence. He has, therefore, urged that the bail granted to the non-petitioner No. 2 may be cancelled and he may be directed to be taken into custody. 6. Learned PR has also supported the learned counsel for the petitioner but he could not explain satisfactorily as to why any application for cancellation of bail was not moved by and on behalf of the State in this case. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the considerations for grant of bail are different from the grounds for cancellation of bail. He has drawn my attention to the case of Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1993 SC 1 wherein various grounds for cancellation of bail have been laid down. He has submitted that the non-petitioner No. 2 has neither misused the liberty by indulging in similar activities after his release on bail nor he has interfered with the course of investigation nor attempted to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor threatened the witnesses. There is no allegation against him that he has not made himself available for trial. According to him bail once granted cannot be cancelled lightly and merely on the ground that the discretion has been exercised improperly. He has also referred to the case of Mahant Chand Nathan Yogi & another v. State of Haryana reported in 2003(1) Crimes 49 (SC) wherein it has been observed as under: "This Court in Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra & Anr. (2000 SCC (Cr.) 1508 ) following the principles stated in Dolat Ram & Ors. He has also referred to the case of Mahant Chand Nathan Yogi & another v. State of Haryana reported in 2003(1) Crimes 49 (SC) wherein it has been observed as under: "This Court in Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra & Anr. (2000 SCC (Cr.) 1508 ) following the principles stated in Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 ) has reiterated that there is a distinction between rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted. Normally, very cogent and overwhelming grounds or circumstances are required to cancel the bail already granted. In the present case, the High Court, it appears, did not bear this distinction in mind and cancelled the bail in a mechanical manner. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the record. 9. Section 439 Cr.P.C. expressly empowers the court of Sessions and the High Court to cancel the bail granted under sub-section (1) of Section 439 or Section 438 Cr.RC. However, it is to be remembered that the power to take into custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection and in appropriate cases only where from the preponderance of probabilities, it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with the witnesses. The court has to strike the balance between the necessity of not allowing the course of justice to be deflected and that of allowing liberty to the accused until he is found guilty. The liberty once granted to an accused cannot be curtailed by cancellation of bail unless the court has granted bail in contravention of the well settled principles of law which are required to be taken into consideration while granting anticipatory bail. Where the prosecution is able to make out the case falling in any one or more categories enumerated in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai (supra), the bail can be cancelled. 10. In the instant case, the learned court below has extended the benefit of anticipatory bail to the non-petitioner No. 2 on the ground that the prosecutrix has given varying versions in the two reports made by her at the police station and before the S.R Bharatpur, and in her statements u/ss. 161 and 164 Cr.RC. 10. In the instant case, the learned court below has extended the benefit of anticipatory bail to the non-petitioner No. 2 on the ground that the prosecutrix has given varying versions in the two reports made by her at the police station and before the S.R Bharatpur, and in her statements u/ss. 161 and 164 Cr.RC. He has also noticed several other glaring contradictions and discrepancies in the statements recorded during investigation in her earliest versions as given in the written report made at the police station on 3.3.2002 which is also signed by her husband Bhup Singh, Jeth Supriya and aunt-in-law Mst. Meena, she has not levelled any allegation of rape against the non-petitioner Chhanga, but in the second report which she made before the S.P. Bharatpur on 5.3.2002 she has levelled allegation of rape against Chhanga. This part in her earlier version she levelled the allegation was levelled in the subsequent version. The learned court below has also noticed that the discrepancies between the statement of the prosecutrix and Mst. Meena so the order of the learned court below cannot be said to be perverse or totally without any basis. There is no allegation against the non-petitioner Chhanga that he has after his release on anticipatory bail misused the liberty granted to him by tampering with or threatening the prosecution witnesses or indulging in similar alleged offences thereafter, so as to justify and warrant cancellation of bail granted to him. Thus, keeping in view the settled principles of law in this regard and the materials on record, no case for cancellation of bail granted to non-petitioner No. 2 Chhanga is made out and this application deserve&to be rejected and is hereby rejected.Application rejected. *******