K. S. JHAVERI, J. ( 1 ) BY way of this Criminal Misc. Application, the applicant-the original complainant The Kheralu Nagarik Sahakari bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the bank or the applicant), has prayed for quashing the order dated 16th September 2005, passed by the Additional Sessions judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal misc. Application No. 715 of 2005 and to cancel the bail granted to the accused, the respondent no. 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2 or Branch Manager ). ( 2 ) BEFORE considering the merits of the matter, it would be necessary to set out the short facts of the case which are as under:1]. The applicant bank is a cooperative bank having its one of the branches at Sola Road area of Ahmedabad. The respondent No. 2 herein was the Branch manager of the applicant Bank. As per the applicant, during the tenure of the respondent No. 2 as Branch Manager, he has caused financial loss to the applicant bank to the extent of Rs. 3,50,64,825/- by way of fraudulent transactions. As regards the present complaint is concerned, the amount of misappropriation is about Rs. 25,92,598. 30 from one Current Account No. 5490. 2]. In connection with the said alleged irregularities a First Information report was lodged 21. 10. 2003 at Ghatlodia police Station, which came to be registered as C. R. No. 362 of 2003 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 114 and 120b of Indian penal Code. In the said FIR the respondent no. 2 was shown as accused No. l. According to the FIR, the modus operand! adopted by the respondent No. 2 was that though a particular account holder does not have sufficient balance in his account and no cash credit limit or loan facility is granted, the respondent No. 2, who was holding the post of Branch Manager at the relevant time, by misusing his position, allowed the cheques to be honoured and withdrawal slips drawn by such account holder for payment and therefore permitted unauthorized withdrawal causing loss to the bank. 3]. The FIR came to be lodged on 21st October 2003. The respondent No. 2 thereafter filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which came to be rejected. Subsequently the respondent no. 3]. The FIR came to be lodged on 21st October 2003. The respondent No. 2 thereafter filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which came to be rejected. Subsequently the respondent no. 2 approached this Court praying for anticipatory bail which came to be withdrawn on 12. 5. 2004. In spite of this, the respondent no. 2 was not arrested. ( 3 ) THE applicant bank therefore filed Special Criminal Application No. 74 of 2005 before this Court for a direction to the concerned Police Officer to take steps for arresting the accused. The said petition came to be disposed of by directing the authorities to take steps for the purpose of taking action under sections 82 and 83 of Cr. P. C for declaring the respondent No. 2 as accused absconding. However, it appears that even thereafter no arrest was made for quite some time. 1]. The applicant made representation on 1. 8. 2005 to various authorities including the Chief Minister, home Secretary, Director General of Police, etc. On 24th August 2005 the respondent no. 2 came to be arrested. The respondent no. 2 filed an application for regular bail before the District and Sessions Court at ahmedabad (Rural ). The Sessions Court passed order dated 19. 9. 2005 granting bail to the respondent No. 2. The applicant bank has therefore filed the present application praying to cancel the said order of bail. ( 4 ) HEARD Mr. P. K. Jani for the applicant, Mr. H. L. Jani for the respondent no. l State and Mr. P. M. Thakkar, Senior advocate, with Mr. D. M. Thakkar and Mr. V. K. Joshi for the respondent No. 2. 1]. Mr. P. K. Jani submitted that the sessions Judge has committed an error in releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail without considering his grave involvement in serious financial irregularities. 2]. He submitted that from the record it is evident that the respondent No. 2 was absconding for quite some time and it is only after an order was passed by this court that the respondent No. 2 came to be arrested after a period of almost two years. He therefore submitted that looking to the conduct of the respondent No. 2 the Sessions judge ought not to have enlarged the respondent No. 2 on bail. 3]. Mr. He therefore submitted that looking to the conduct of the respondent No. 2 the Sessions judge ought not to have enlarged the respondent No. 2 on bail. 3]. Mr. Jani submitted that till the date of charge sheet the respondent No. 2 was not arrested and the respondent No. 2 was shown to be absconding in the charge sheet. 4]. He has further submitted that the sessions Judge has erroneously considered parity in respect of accused No. 4 Kamlesh p. Shah inasmuch as this Court, while granting bail to the said accused No. 2 found that the "password" for permitting the overdrafts in excess of the balance of an accountholder was with the Branch Manager i. e. the present respondent No. 2. 5]. Mr. Jani submitted that the sessions Court had earlier rejected the anticipatory bail. Thereafter the anticipatory bail application filed by the respondent No. 2 before this Court which was withdrawn and thereafter he was arrested. He, therefore, submitted that under these circumstances the Sessions Court ought not to have granted bail to him. 6]. He submitted that looking to the serious financial irregularity and the conduct of the respondent No. 2 the Sessions Judge should not have granted bail to the respondent No. 2. 7]. Mr. Jani submitted that many criminal complaints are pending against the present respondent and therefore, it would not be advisable to release the respondent no. 2 on bail. 8]. It is contended that in a similar case the respondent No. 2 was granted bail by the Sessions Court on certain conditions. However, he committed breach of the conditions as a result of which the respondent was re-arrested. 9]. Mr. Jani has also relied upon certain decisions of the Apex Court and this court, which will be discussed hereinafter. ( 5 ) MR. H. L. Jani appearing for the state has supported the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant Bank. He submitted that the respondent No. 2 being the Branch Manager of the Bank, without his knowledge the alleged irregularities could not have taken place. He submitted that admittedly the cash is withdrawn by the respondent No. 2 in the name of original accused No. 2 who is the peon of the Bank. According to him, there is credible evidence against the respondent No. 2 which was overlooked by the Sessions Court and therefore the bail granted to the respondent no. He submitted that admittedly the cash is withdrawn by the respondent No. 2 in the name of original accused No. 2 who is the peon of the Bank. According to him, there is credible evidence against the respondent No. 2 which was overlooked by the Sessions Court and therefore the bail granted to the respondent no. 2 deserves to be cancelled. ( 6 ) MR. P. M. Thakkar, learned senior Counsel, appearing for the accused-respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection to the effect that this application is not filed by the State, but by the applicant bank and therefore it deserves to be rejected. 1]. Mr. Thakkar submitted that prima facie no case is made out against the respondent No. 2. According to him, the temporary Over Draft (TOD) facility was availed of by the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 on different dates by drawing cheques in favour of different parties and some cheques drawn in favour of self of different amounts. 2]. He submitted that all the withdrawals by self drawn cheques were passed and cleared by Accused No. 4 Kamlesh shah for payments to accused nos. 2 and 3 and the respondent No. 2 has not signed any such cheques for clearance and payment to accused nos. 2 and 3. 3]. Mr. Thakkar submitted that the audit of accounts of the bank was made every year between 2000 and 2003 and in all audit reports the amounts of TOD in favour of accused nos. 2 and 3 were shown to the Head office Bank Management. According to him no objections were raised by the Bank management and since accused No. 2 is brother-in-law of the then Director Shri nandlal Babulal Bhavsar, with the consent and knowledge of the Board of Directors, the tod facility was extended and continued from time to time between 2002 and 2003. According to him, the accused No. 2 admitted in writing executed on stamp paper submitted before the Bank Manager, about his liability of the TOD amounts mentioned in the FIR and the Bank Manager did not file any complaint. 4]. Mr. Thakkar further submitted that the FIR has been filed after three years by the Bank Management by falsely implicating the respondent No. 2 to shirk from their responsibility in favouring and protecting the accused No. 2. 5]. According to Mr. 4]. Mr. Thakkar further submitted that the FIR has been filed after three years by the Bank Management by falsely implicating the respondent No. 2 to shirk from their responsibility in favouring and protecting the accused No. 2. 5]. According to Mr. Thakkar, the accused No. 4 Kamlesh P. Shah was released on bail by this Hon ble Court and therefore even on parity the present application may not be entertained. 6]. Mr. Thakkar submitted that while considering the case for cancellation of bail, the Court has to consider whether the grounds which are considered by the sessions Court are valid or not. He submitted that this Court is required to consider that this is not a crime where the applicant is involved and that the original accused nos. 2 and 3 are relatives of the director of the applicant bank and the respondent No. 2 being an employee of the applicant bank, he was required to follow the instructions of the Director. He, therefore, submitted that this is not a fit case where this Court should interfere in the matter of cancellation of bail. ( 7 ) MR. Thakkar, in support of his submissions, relied upon a decision in the case of DOLAT RAM AND OTHERS V/s. STATE OF HARYANA, REPORTED IN 1995 (1) SCC 349 (= 1995 SCC (CRI) 237: 1994 (9) SCALE 1119: 1995 (1) JT 127 ) wherein it is held that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. 1]. He relied upon a decision in the case of SUBBENDU MISHRA V/s. SUBRAT kumar MISHRA, REPORTED IN AIR 1999 sc 3026 [2000 SCC (CRI.) 1508]. In the said case the Apex Court held that High Court overlooked distinction of factors relevant for rejecting bail at initial stage and canceling bail once granted and therefore cancellation of bail done in mechanical manner is not sustainable. 2]. Mr. In the said case the Apex Court held that High Court overlooked distinction of factors relevant for rejecting bail at initial stage and canceling bail once granted and therefore cancellation of bail done in mechanical manner is not sustainable. 2]. Mr. Thakkar has next relied upon decision in the case of M. C. ABRAHAM v/s. STATE OP MAHARASHTRA, reportedj (2003)2 SCC 649 ( 2003 (1)SUPREME 126 : 2002 (10) JT 482 : 2002 (9)SCALE 769 : 2003 SCC (CRI.) 628) wherein it is held that discretions should not be exercised mechanically, but should be exercised cautiously and with circumspection having regard to the nature of the offence alleged and the type of person accused of having committed a cognizable offence. It was further held in the said decision that merely because rejection of anticipatory bail applications would not be a ground for directing immediate arrest of accused. 3]. Mr. Thakkar, has relied upon a decision in the case of NITYANAND RAI VI s. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER, reported IN AIR 2005 SC 2239 [= (2005)4 scc 178 : 2005 CR. L. J. 2187: 2005 SCC (CRI.)1159:], wherein it is held that allegation as to abscondence of the accused in the past or the likelihood of the same in future is not sustainable for cancellation of bail. 4]. He has next relied upon a decision in the case of RAMCHARAN V/s. STATE OF M. P. REPORTED IN (2006)1 SCC (CRI.) 511, wherein it is held that different considerations have to be weighed while dealing with applications for cancellation or bail and for grant of bail respectively and that in absence of any supervening circumstances which might warrant recalling of the order which granted bail, suo motu cancellation of bail by the High Court merely on the ground that the bail order was passed on some misapprehension of factual position is not sustainable. 5]. He has also relied upon a decision of this Court passed in CRIMINAL misc. APPLICATION NO. 1662 OF 2000 dated 10 JULY. 2000 whereby the said application for cancellation of bail has been rejected. ( 8 ) AT this stage it would be relevant to note the grounds weighed with the sessions Judge for granting bail to the respondent No. 2. APPLICATION NO. 1662 OF 2000 dated 10 JULY. 2000 whereby the said application for cancellation of bail has been rejected. ( 8 ) AT this stage it would be relevant to note the grounds weighed with the sessions Judge for granting bail to the respondent No. 2. One of the grounds was that the original accused No. 4 namely kamlesh Shah was granted bail by this court by order dated 13th August 2004 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6534/2004. 1]. The other ground was that the charge sheet was filed and that there was no question of further investigation. 2]. The Sessions Judge has also considered the fact that earlier no bail application was preferred by the respondent no. 2 and that all the documents were in the custody of the police. ( 9 ) IT is a well settled law that the court before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences, particularly where the trial has not yet commenced should take into consideration various matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other consideration. It is also a settled law that if a prima facie case is made out against the accused, order granting bail to him pending investigation is not proper. Hence it is required to be seen whether the Sessions court has exercised the discretion properly or not and whether sufficient grounds are available for cancellation of bail or not. 1]. The respondent No. 2 is charged with committing fraud and misappropriation of funds in respect of the present complaint is to the extent of Rs. 25,92,498. 30 (Rupees twentyfive lacs ninetytwo thousand four hundred ninety-eight and thirty paise only ). However, the total misappropriation is to the extent of Rs. 3,50. ,64,825/- (Rupees three crores fifty lacs sixty-four thousand eight hundred twenty five only), and the amount is public money. The FIR was lodged on 21st october 2003. The respondent No. 2 has filed anticipatory bail application on 12th May 2004, which was rejected by the Sessions court. On 21st July 2004 he filed anticipatory bail application before the High Court which came to be withdrawn. The FIR was lodged on 21st october 2003. The respondent No. 2 has filed anticipatory bail application on 12th May 2004, which was rejected by the Sessions court. On 21st July 2004 he filed anticipatory bail application before the High Court which came to be withdrawn. However, till March 2005 the respondent No. 2 was not arrested in connection with the FIR even though he was the accused No. 1 in the complaint. 2]. The applicant bank therefore filed Special Criminal Application No. 74 of 2005 before this Court praying to direct the concerned officer to initiate steps for arresting the respondent No. 2 along with other accused and to initiate proceedings in accordance with law. In the said petition on 16th March 2005 this Court passed an order directing that the Investigating Agency shall start appropriate steps for the purpose of taking action under sections 82 and 83 for declaring the respondent No. 2 as accused absconding. 3]. It appears that even then the arrest was not made. Thereupon representation was made to Chief Minister, home Secretary, Director General of Police and others on 1st August 2005. Thereafter on 24th August 2005 the respondent No. 2 came to be arrested. Within a period of one week i. e. on 1st September 2005 he moved an application for regular bail before the sessions Court and by order dated 13th september 2005 he was enlarged on bail. It is therefore required to be noted that the offence was registered in the year 2003 and the respondent No. 2 was arrested only in august 2005 i. e. after a period of almost two years. From the aforesaid facts it is apparent that the respondent No. 2 was avoiding the process of law and the arrest. ( 10 ) IN light of the above facts the grounds weighed with the Sessions Court are required to be analysed. The Sessions Court held that the charge sheet has already been filed and therefore it is a ground for grant of bail. However, it appears that the Sessions court lost sight of the fact that the charge sheet was submitted on 23rd August 2004 i. e. even before the arrest of the respondent no. 2. Further, the respondent No. 2 was shown as absconding. However, it appears that the Sessions court lost sight of the fact that the charge sheet was submitted on 23rd August 2004 i. e. even before the arrest of the respondent no. 2. Further, the respondent No. 2 was shown as absconding. I am therefore of the view that the Sessions Court fell into an error in taking such a ground for releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail. 1]. The second ground for grant of bail was that the original accused No. 4 kamlesh P. Shah had been granted regular bail and therefore the respondent No. 2 is also required to be released oh bail. In this connection it is required to be noted that the said Kamlesh P. Shah had preferred criminal Misc. Application No. 6534 of 2004 before this Court and the order dated 13th august 2004 in the said application is available for perusal of this Court. In the said order this Court observed as under: "2 (ii) The statement of witness -Bhavanbhai Parbat Patel dated 2nd June 2004 reveals that only the Branch Manager had the pass word for permitting the overdrafts in excess of the balance in the account. The cheques collected indicate that the endorsement is of signature verified and pay cash". Thus, the order passed by this Court clearly indicates that the said original accused Kamlesh P. Shah was released on bail because this Court had found that "password" for permitting the over-drafts in excess of the balance of an account holder was with the Branch Manager i. e. the present respondent No. 2. Thus, in fact it is on the ground that the respondent No. 2 is responsible for such irregularity, the said kamlesh P. Shah has been released on bail. Therefore, the Sessions Court has committed an error in granting bail on the alleged ground of parity which is not emerging from the record. 2]. Another observation made by the Sessions Court is that the investigation is already over. From the papers it is found that the investigation with respect to those accused who were arrested was over and the charge sheet was also filed on 23rd August 2004 with respect to those accused, showing the present respondent No. 2 accused as absconding. In fact the respondent No. 2 was not available for investigation at all. From the papers it is found that the investigation with respect to those accused who were arrested was over and the charge sheet was also filed on 23rd August 2004 with respect to those accused, showing the present respondent No. 2 accused as absconding. In fact the respondent No. 2 was not available for investigation at all. Therefore, while granting bail the said fact has been erroneously considered in favour of the respondent No. 2. 3]. It is required to be noted that the respondent No. 2 had preferred anticipatory bail application before the sessions Court which was rejected. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 approached this Court praying for anticipatory bail which was withdrawn. Thereafter, after arrest of the respondent No. 2. , he moved an application for regular bail before the sessions court. The sessions Court, without considering the fact that earlier applications for anticipatory bail were not granted, by sessions Court and High Court, allowed the application and granted bail. When the anticipatory bail was not granted earlier, there was no change in the circumstance* to grant regular bail. 4]. Another aspect of the matter is that the charge sheet was submitted on 23rd august 2004 before the arrest of the respondent No. 2. There are consistent statements on record that the respondent no. 2 was having the password and was allowing withdrawal on his own volition without there being sufficient balance in the account. Thus, there is prima facie evidence that the respondent No. 2 is connected with the alleged offence. 5]. It was further pointed out that the respondent was arrested in respect of another case being M. Case No. 9 of 2002 and he was granted regular bail by the sessions Court on certain conditions. However, the respondent No. 2 has committed breach of the conditions, as a result of which warrant for his arrest was issued and he was rearrested. 6]. The summary of the aforesaid discussion is that, the accused was in a controlling position i. e. Branch Manager of the Bank; he was the only person knowing the Password: he allowed many account holders to withdraw amounts even though there was no sufficient amount in their accounts; the act of the respondent No. 2 has been corroborated by the statement of the employees; the respondent No. 2 tried to evade arrest from the date of filing FIR i. e. 21. 10. 10. 2003 till 24. 8. 2005: he was arrested only when the proceedings for declaring him to be an absconder were initiated and that because of his alleged act the bank has suffered a huge loss. It is required to be noted that the respondent No. 2 is custodian and/or Trustee of the bank and therefore, he should have acted to safeguard the interest of the bank. On perusal of the record it is clear that the contention that the withdrawal is by the relatives of the director is only an excuse. From the above facts, it is evident that the grounds stated for releasing the applicant were not sustainable at all. ( 11 ) IN the case of STATE V/s. JASPAL SINGH GILL, REPORTED IN AIR 1984 SC 1503 : 1984 (3) SCC 555 : 1984 (3) SCR 993 : 1984cr. LJ 1211 : 1984 SCC (CRI.) 444: 1984 (1) SCALE 990 ], the Apex Court held that the Court before granting bail in case involving non-bailable offences particularly where the trial has not yet commenced should take into consideration various matters such as the nature of seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public of the State and similar other consideration. Considering the facts narrated hereinabove, especially in view of the fact that the respondent No. 2 was evading the arrest, it cannot be ruled out that there is a possibility of the respondent not being secured at the trial and his tampering with the witnesses. 1]. In th cm of HAHZAD hasan KHAN V/s. ISHTIAQ HASAN khan AND, ANOTHER, REPORTED IN air 1987 SC 1613 [= 1987 (2) SCO 684 : 1987 (3) SCR 34 : 1987 (2) GLH 183 : 1987 (2)JT 323 1987 SCC (CRI.) 415 1987 CR. LJ. 1872: 1987 (1) SCALE 1249 ], the Apex Court held that if the accused named in FIR is absconding after the incident, but surrendering after a month, order granting bail was liable to be set aside. LJ. 1872: 1987 (1) SCALE 1249 ], the Apex Court held that if the accused named in FIR is absconding after the incident, but surrendering after a month, order granting bail was liable to be set aside. In the present case, it is apparent that the applicant was evading his arrest for more than 1 year nine months and it is only on order of this Court for initiating proceedings for declaring him as an absconder, he was arrested. 2]. In the case of STATE OF maharashtra V/s. RAMESH TAURANI, reported IN AIR 1998 SC 586 ( 1998 (1)SCC 41 : 1998 CRI. L. J. 855: 1997 (9) JT 304 : 1997 (7) SCALE 168 : 1998 SCC (CRI.)257], the apex Court held that if there is a prima facie case made out against the accused, order granting bail to him pending investigation is not proper. On the facts of the present case, there is certainly a prima facie case against the respondent No. 2 and therefore, considering the gravity of the offence the Sessions Court ought not to have granted bail to him. 3]. In the case of STATE through CBI V/s. AMARMANI tripathi, REPORTED IN AIR 2005 SC 3490 [= 2005 (8) SCC 21 : 2005 SCO (CRI.) 1960: 2005 CRI. LJ 4149] the Apex Court held that while considering and deciding appeals against grant of bail, where the accused has been at large for a considerable time, the post-bail conduct and supervening circumstances will also have to be taken note of. If bail has been granted illegally or improperly and if the discretion is exercised erroneously, the bail granted is liable to be cancelled even if there is absence of supervening circumstances. 4]. In the case of JAYESH G. RAMANI V/s. STATE OF GUJARAT, reported IN 2004 (3) GLH 270 , the second anticipatory bail application has been rejected on the ground that the accused was not traceable and was found absconding and even during the course of hearing of the application the accused has not presented himself for interrogation by the police. In the case of JAYESH G. RAMANI V/s. STATE OF GUJARAT, reported IN 2004 (3) GLH 270 , the second anticipatory bail application has been rejected on the ground that the accused was not traceable and was found absconding and even during the course of hearing of the application the accused has not presented himself for interrogation by the police. ( 12 ) THE preliminary contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is devoid of any merits in view of the observation of the Apex Court in the case of R. RATHINAM V/s. STATE, REPORTED in AIR 2000 SC 1851 (=2002 (2) SCC 391: 2000 scc (CRI.) 958: 2000 (1) CRIME 211: 2000 (1)JT 604 : 2000 (1) SCALE 458 : 2000 (1) SUPREME 431 ) Para 8 of the said decision reads as under:8. It is not disputed before us that the power so vested in the High Court can be invoked either by the State or by any aggrieved party. Nor is it disputed that the said power can be exercised suo motu by the high Court. If so, any members of the public, whether he belongs to any particular profession or otherwise, who has a concern in the matter can move the high Court to remind it of the need to invoke the said power suo motu. There is no barrier either in Section 439 the Code or in any other law which inhibits a person from moving the High court to have such powers exercised suo motu. If the High Court considers that there is no need to cancel the bail for the reasons stated in such petition, after making such considerations it is open for the high Court to dismiss the petition. If that is the position, it is also open to the High Court to cancel the bail if the High Court feels that the reasons stated in the petition are sufficient enough for doing so. It is, therefore, improper to refuse to look into the matter on the premise that such a petition is not maintainable in law. In view of the above decision, the preliminary contention raised by the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 cannot be accepted. 1]. In the case of DELHI administration V/s. SANJAY GANDHI, reported IN AIR 1978 SC 961 [ 1978 (2)SCC 411 : 1978 CRI. In view of the above decision, the preliminary contention raised by the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 cannot be accepted. 1]. In the case of DELHI administration V/s. SANJAY GANDHI, reported IN AIR 1978 SC 961 [ 1978 (2)SCC 411 : 1978 CRI. LJ 952: 1978 SCC (CR.)223: 1978 (3) SCR 9501. in. para 25 it is held as under: "25. The power to cancel bail was exercised by the Bombay High Court in madhukar Purshottam Mondkar V/s. Talab haji Hussain, 60 Bom LR 465: ( AIR 1958 bom 406 ) where the accused was charged with a bailable offence. The test adopted by that court was whether the material placed before the Court was "such as to lead to the conclusion that there is a strong prima facie case that if the accused were to be allowed to be at large he would tamper with the prosecution witnesses and impede the course of justice". An appeal preferred by the accused against the judgement of the Bombay high Court was dismissed by this Court. In gurcharan Singh V/s. State (Delhi administration), 1978 Cri LJ 129 at p. 137 : ( AIR 1978 SC 179 at p. 187) while confirming the order of the high Court cancelling the bail of the accused, this Court observed that the only question which the Court had to consider at that stage was whether "there was prima facie case made out, as alleged, on the statements of the witnesses and on other materials", that "there was a likelihood of the appellants tempering with the prosecution witnesses". It is by the application of this test that we have come to the conclusion that the respondent s bail ought to be cancelled. " in the present case a prima facie case has been made out against the respondent No. 2. Other complaints are pending investigation. The grounds on which the Sessions Court relied upon are erroneous. The respondent No. 2 was evading his arrest. Therefore this is a fit case to cancel the bail granted to the respondent no. 2. 2]. In the case of PURAN V/s. RAMBILAS, REPORTED IN AIR 2001 SC 2023 [=2001 (6) SCO 338: 2001 (5) JT 226 : 2001 (3) SCALE 695 : 2001 (3) SUPREME 685 :2001 SCC (CRI.) 1124: 2001 (3) SCR 432] in paragraphs 8 and 10 the Apex Court held as under: "8. Mr. 2. 2]. In the case of PURAN V/s. RAMBILAS, REPORTED IN AIR 2001 SC 2023 [=2001 (6) SCO 338: 2001 (5) JT 226 : 2001 (3) SCALE 695 : 2001 (3) SUPREME 685 :2001 SCC (CRI.) 1124: 2001 (3) SCR 432] in paragraphs 8 and 10 the Apex Court held as under: "8. Mr. Lalit next submitted that the high Court has itself not given reasons but has mechanically set aside the order of the bail. We see no substance in this submission. The High Court has correctly not gone into the merits or demerits of the matter. The high Court has noted that evidence prima facie indicated demand of dowry. The High court has briefly indicated the evidence on record and what was found at the scene of the offence. The High Court has indicated that evidence prima facie indicated that a demand for Rs. 1 lac was made just a month prior to the incident in question. The high court has stated that the material on record suggested that the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-A were prima facie disclosed. The High Court has concluded that the material on record, the nature of injuries, demand for Rs. l lac and the other circumstances were such that this was not a fit case granting bail. Thus, the High Court has given every cogent reasons why bail should not have been granted and why this unjustified erroneous Order granting bail should be cancelled. "10. Further, it is to be kept in mind 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. This position is made clear by this Court in gurucharan Singh V/s. State (Delhi Admn), reported in AIR 1978 SC 179 : (1978 Cri LJ 129 ). In that case the Court observed as under (Para 16):"if, however, a Court of sessions had admitted an accused person to bail, the state has two options. It may move the Sessions judge if certain new circumstances have arise which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The state may as well approach the High Court being the superior Court under S. 439 (2) to commit the accused to custody. It may move the Sessions judge if certain new circumstances have arise which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The state may as well approach the High Court being the superior Court under S. 439 (2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the high Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the high Court. "3]. In the case of STATE V/s. LALJI POPAT, REPORTED IN 1988 (2) GLR 1073 [ 1988 (2) GLH 114 ], in para 22 it is held as under:"22. Applying the aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that if the Sessions Court grants the bail application erroneously or illegally or arbitrarily without considering the relevant factors, then this Court is helpless and cannot quash and st aside the order passed by the sessions Court. This Court under Sec. 439 (2)or under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure code has jurisdiction to quash and set aside any arbitrary or illegal order passed by the subordinate Court. "it is, therefore, clear that when a bail is granted on erroneous ground without considering the relevant factors, this Court has ample power to cancel the bail. 4]. Mr. Thakkar had relied upon an unreported DECISION DATED 10. 7. 2000 passed BY THIS COURT IN CRIMINAL misc. APPLICATION NO. 1664 OF 2000. In this connection it is required to be noted that in the case of STATE V/s. MOHMADHUSAIN A. MEMAN. REPORTED in 1997 (1) GLR 74 wherein it is held that the High Court can interfere with the order granting bail if it is granted disregarding principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the aforesaid judgement would be of no assistance to the respondent No. 2. 5]. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the Sessions court has committed an error in granting bail to the respondent No. 2, which requires to be cancelled. Therefore, the aforesaid judgement would be of no assistance to the respondent No. 2. 5]. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the Sessions court has committed an error in granting bail to the respondent No. 2, which requires to be cancelled. ( 13 ) BEFORE concluding it is required to be noted that the Court should not ignore the fact that in recent past there were large scale scam in cooperative banks as a result of which many cooperative banks have been closed down putting small investors into serious financial hardships. Such scams took place only with the connivance of the directors and/or Managers of the respective banks, who are Trustee/custodian of the bank. Such scams have seriously affected the economic condition of cooperative banks and also the general public at large. Therefore in these times it would not be advisable to take a liberal view in such serious financial irregularities affecting the general public. The role of Director and Manager (persons in management) is important in view of the fact that they are empowered with the power and duty in respect of public money and dereliction of their duty will seriously affect the life and business of general public. ( 14 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions it is evident that the very foundation of granting bail to the respondent no. 2 is on erroneous ground and consideration which are not emerging from the record. After a detailed consideration I am of the view that the grounds which are considered by the Sessions Court are not valid grounds for grant of bail. The respondent No. 2 has evaded arrest till this court passed an order for declaring him as an absconder. The amount, which is public money, involved is a huge sum. The charge sheet has been filed before the arrest of the respondent No. 2 and he was shown to be absconding and it cannot be said that the investigation qua the respondent No. 2 is over. On perusal of the record, I am of the view that there is presence of supervening circumstances which warrant recalling of the order which granted bail. The discretion exercised by the Sessions Court is not just and proper and the present application requires to be allowed. ( 15 ) IN the result this application is allowed. On perusal of the record, I am of the view that there is presence of supervening circumstances which warrant recalling of the order which granted bail. The discretion exercised by the Sessions Court is not just and proper and the present application requires to be allowed. ( 15 ) IN the result this application is allowed. The order dated 16th September 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Misc. Application No. 715 of 2005 is quashed and set aside and the bail granted to respondent no. 2 is hereby cancelled. The respondent no. 2 shall surrender before the authorities on or before 4th May 2005. Rule is made absolute accordingly.