A. C. KABBIN, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition filed by the State under Section 439 (2) of the Cr. P. C. , anticipatory bail granted to the respondent/accused by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Chickmagalur in Cri, Mis. No. 52 of 2003 by order dated 10-3-2003 is sought to be cancelled. ( 2 ) A case of rape was registered against the respondent on the basis of a complaint made by a young girl at 2. 30 p. m. on 3-2-2003. It was alleged by her in the complaint that at about 8 p. m. , the previous day, when she was going to the house of Nagarajagowda for the purpose of areca work, the accused/respondent, came from her backside suddenly, embraced her and committed rape on her. It was further stated by her that when she shouted, the accused ran away. She told about the incident to a friend of hers at the place of work, but since her mother was not at home, she could not tell her about the incident. The next day morning, she told about the incident to her elder brother, who took her to Balehonnur Police Station, where she lodged a complaint. On the basis of the same, a case was registered against the present respondent for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989. Apprehending arrest, the respondent filed Cri. Mis. No. 52 of 2003 praying for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned additional Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, while considering the petition for bail observed that during the course of the alleged rape, the complainant did not shout for help, but shouted only after the alleged rape, which fact indicated possible consent of the complainant for the act of the accused. On the basis of that presumption, he passed an order on 10-3-2003, granting anticipatory bail. In fiirtherance of the same, the petitioner surrendered before the police on 13-3-2003. He was arrested and the underwear allegedly worn by him on the date of the alleged incident was seized and thereafter he was released on bail. It is further stated that after the case was committed to the Sessions, he has been granted regular bail. In fiirtherance of the same, the petitioner surrendered before the police on 13-3-2003. He was arrested and the underwear allegedly worn by him on the date of the alleged incident was seized and thereafter he was released on bail. It is further stated that after the case was committed to the Sessions, he has been granted regular bail. This petition has been filed by the State for cancellation of bail on the ground that considering the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the case, anticipatory bail ought not to have been granted to the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE learned High Court Government Pleader argues that the presence of the accused for the investigation in such a serious offence was necessary and that grant of anticipatory bail drawing a premature conelusion that in all probability, the alleged act was with the consent of the complainant was unwarranted. He therefore requests that the bail granted may be cancelled. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent argues that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, anticipatory bail was granted and that thereafter after commital of the case, regular bail was also granted and that therefore when the accused/respondent has not misused the liberty given by such orders, the bail granted may not be cancelled In this regard, he has relied upon three decisions of the supreme Court. In the case of Subhendu Mishra v Subrat Kumar mishra and Another, the principle laid down is that the cancellation of bail done in a mechanical manner is not sustainable. In the leading decision on the point in the case of Bhagirathsinha Judeja v State of gujarat, the principle laid down is that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. In a later decision i. e. , in the case of Mahant Chand Nath Yogi and another v State of Haryana, it is observed that normally, very cogent and overwhelming grounds or circumstances are required to cancel the bail already granted and that when relevant facts and circumstances are taken into account and reasons are given in support while granting the anticipatory bail, the bail should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. In the light of the said decisions, it has to be seen as to whether in the present case, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in granting anticipatory bail. ( 5 ) THE complaint clearly shows that the complainant belongs to a scheduled Caste and a coolie, whereas the accused/respondent belongs to higher strata of the society. The allegations clearly show the act of the accused in dragging the complainant and committing rape on her. While considering the application for anticipatory bail, the learned Sessions judge has gone into the merits of the case and in the absence of supporting materials at that stage, he has drawn a conclusion prematurely that the act might have been with the consent of the complainant and therefore the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. It may be pointed out that the observation of the learned Sessions Judge was premature and was not warranted, particularly when it was not the plea of the accused that the act was with the consent of the complainant. Other facts and circumstances will have to be considered before drawing such a presumption. ( 6 ) THOUGH an accused has to be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty, that presumption does not exempt him from being questioned with regard to the allegations against him and the necessity of detaining him pending further investigation of the allegations in the complaint. He is not required to confess to the crime alleged, but is definitely liable for interrogation particularly in serious offences like murder and rape. It may be that interrogation may reveal information leading to the discovery of incriminating article, which may furnish a valuable link in the chain of events. In cases of rape and assault, the injuries on the person of the accused and the apparel worn by him at the relevant time may be material in deciding the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation against him. It is, therefore necessary that the Court granting anticipatory bail shall, if necessary, direct the accused to surrender before the i. O. for the purpose of interrogation and that the bail should be operative from the time the interrogation is completed; and in appropriate cases, after recovery of incriminating article in accordance with law. It is, therefore necessary that the Court granting anticipatory bail shall, if necessary, direct the accused to surrender before the i. O. for the purpose of interrogation and that the bail should be operative from the time the interrogation is completed; and in appropriate cases, after recovery of incriminating article in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge was not right in granting a blanket anticipatory bail that too to be utilised next within three months. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, in the present case it is seen that the accused/respondent was released on bail about a year back and there is no allegation that the liberty given to him has been misused. The trial of the case is about to start in the Sessions Court and when there is no allegation of any attempt on his part to tamper with the prosecution evidence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case wherein anticipatory bail granted may be cancelled. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the plea of the State is not accepted and the petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .