A. S. NAIDU, J. ( 1 ) AS both the cases relate to one order, i. e. , order dated 7th february, 2006 passed by the learned sessions Judge, Cuttack in BLAPL No. 215 of 2006 in connection with G. R. Case no. 157 of 2006 pending before the SDJM (S), Cuttack the same were heard together. ( 2 ) CRLMA No. 16 of 2006 has been filed by Soni Senapati, informant in the aforesaid G. R. Case praying for cancellation of bail granted to accused-opposite parties 2 and 3 namely Cecon Patnaik and Kamalakanta Patnaik by the learned sessions Judge, Cuttack by order dated 7th February, 2006 in BLAPL No. 215 of 2006. CRLMA No. 17 of 2006 has been filed by accused Cecon Patnaik praying modification of one of the conditions imposed on him by the Sessions Judge while granting him bail. ( 3 ) TO appreciate the inter se disputes among the parties, it would be prudent to have a bird's eye view at the gist of the allegations made in the FIR lodged by informant Soni Senapati at the Mahila police Station, Cuttack on the basis of which Mahila P. S. Case No. 11 of 2006 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 157 of 2006 was registered. She stated that she had married Cecon Patnaik according to hindu rites and customs on 21 st of January, 2005. After the marriage her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with presentation articles brought by her from her parents and displayed ill-treatment to her. They even did not hesitate to torture her on demand of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 as dowry. It was alleged that while she was staying with Cecon at her husband's working place at Hyderabad, the latter tortured her as the aforesaid demand of cash was not met. The informant was therefore constrained to return back to her parents. Besides many other allegations against her in-laws, she also alleged that being asked she had been to her in-laws' house on 23rd of January, 2006 when in a room locked from inside her husband gagged her mouth by a cloth and while her parents-in-law were holding her hands and legs, her husband pressed a pillow on her face. However when she was struggling to escape as the cloth slipped from her mouth and she started shouting consequently they left her. However when she was struggling to escape as the cloth slipped from her mouth and she started shouting consequently they left her. But then they threatened to kill her and also her parents should she not agree for a mutual divorce. Being so threatened she agreed for a mutual divorce and did not disclose this fact to her parents as she apprehended danger to their life. She stated that only after closure of the divorce case in Court she could venture to report the entire matter to police. On the basis of such allegations the aforesaid cuttack Mahila P. S. Case and the corresponding G. R. Case were initiated for alleged commission of offences under Sections 498-A/294/506/307/34 IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband and father-in-law of the informant were arrested and produced before the SDJM (S), Cuttack who rejected their bail application for which they moved the learned Sessions Judge, cuttack on 6. 2. 2006. The learned Sessions Judge took up their bail application on 7th of February, 2006 and by order passed that very day he granted bail to the said two accused persons. It is alleged by the informant that notwithstanding the prayer of the State Counsel to defer hearing of the bail application so as to enable him to produce the Case Diary, the learned Sessions Judge with undue haste heard the matter and granted bail to the aforesaid accused persons and the order of the learned Sessions Judge having been passed without giving due opportunity to the prosecution to produce the relevant materials and to be heard, the order was unjust, illegal and bail granted to the accused persons is liable to be cancelled on that score. ( 4 ) ACCUSED Cecon Patnaik has filed CRLMA No. 17 of 2006 praying for modification of condition No. (i) stipulated in the order dated 7th February, 2006 of the Sessions Judge granting him bail, i. e. , directing him to appear before the iic of Mahila P. S. once a week, i. e. each sunday, at 10. 30 a. m. till submission of final form/charge-sheet. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials produced. Mr. 30 a. m. till submission of final form/charge-sheet. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials produced. Mr. H. S. Misra appearing for the accused in both the CRLMAs submitted that cecon Patnaik, accused-petitioner in crlma No. 17 of 2006, being an engineer in a Multi-National Company at hyderabad, the condition imposed on him by the sessions Judge for his appearance before the IIC of Cuttack Mahila P. S. every Sunday is not only causing great prejudice but also harassment to him and therefore the same may be waived. Mr. B. P. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the informant-petitioner in crlma No. 16 of 2006, at the other hand, relying on the provisions of Section'439 cr. PC submitted that a Sessions Court before granting bail to a person accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by such Court is required to give notice of the application for bail to the public prosecutor unless any supervening circumstance exists for not doing so, and only thereafter pass orders on the bail application. According to him, a perusal of the order-sheet of the Sessions Court reveals that the said Court did not keep in mind the aforesaid cardinal principle of law, inasmuch as without giving reasonable opportunity to the public prosecutor or the local police to produce the Case diary or perusing the materials available therein or in the LCR, disposed of the bail application in haste. He contended that the bail application bearing number 215 of 2006 was filed before the Sessions court at about 1. 00 p. m. of 6th February, 2006 as would be evident from the endorsement made. The order of that date reads as follows:-"this is a petition u/s. 439 crpc presented by Sri S. C. Mohapatra, Advocate praying for releasing the petitioners on bail in G. R. 157/2006 u/ s. 498 (A)/294/506/307/34 IPC 4 D. P. Act pending in the Court of the SDJM (S), Cuttack is put up. Register. Call for the LCR and put up on 7. 2. 2006 for hearing. "it is submitted that on 7. 2. 2006 at 11. 00 a. m. the matter was taken up for hearing and without the LCR and/or Case diary the same was heard and disposed of not following the mandatory requirements of Section 439 Crpc. To fortify such submission, Mr. 2. 2006 for hearing. "it is submitted that on 7. 2. 2006 at 11. 00 a. m. the matter was taken up for hearing and without the LCR and/or Case diary the same was heard and disposed of not following the mandatory requirements of Section 439 Crpc. To fortify such submission, Mr. Pradhan submitted that a perusal of the FIR would reveal that the informant had alleged that the accused persons were trying to kill her which made out an offence under Section 307 IPC, triable by the Sessions court. Besides there were allegations with regard to torture to the informant by the accused persons both physical and mental on demand of dowry. In view of such serious allegations the Sessions court ought not to have heard the bail application without calling for the Case diary and examining as to whether any incriminating materials connecting the accused persons with the alleged offences were available or not. He further submitted that the undue haste in which the sessions Court disposed of the bail application without calling for the Case Diary or LCR amounts to miscarriage of justice. Mr. Pradhan also submitted that any order passed by the Judge, Family Court had absolutely no bearing on the criminal acts alleged to have been committed by the accused persons and without appreciating the background and/or consent of the informant to agree for mutual divorce, the Sessions Court granted bail to the accused persons basing only on surmises and conjectures. Mr. Pradhan further added that after being released on bail, the accused persons are threatening the informant and her parents with dire consequences if they pursue the criminal case and, as such, it is a fit case where the order of the Sessions Court granting them bail without following the mandatory requirements of Section 439 crpc may be set aside and the bail may be cancelled. ( 6 ) IN reply, Mr. H. S. Misra strongly repudiated the submissions of Mr. Pradhan. According to him, the informant is the daughter of a retired high-ranking police officer and, as such, the allegation that she is being threatened to be killed by the accused persons cannot be believed. He forcefully submitted that all the accused persons are innocent persons. They do not have any criminal antecedent or background. The entire story as narrated in the FIR was stage-managed with a view to humiliating the accused persons. He forcefully submitted that all the accused persons are innocent persons. They do not have any criminal antecedent or background. The entire story as narrated in the FIR was stage-managed with a view to humiliating the accused persons. He further submitted that basing on the fact that there was a decree for mutual divorce passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack the Sessions Court disposed of the bail application and therefore any criticism relating to the order of the sessions Court is unjustified and unwarranted. Mr. H. S. Misra further submitted that accused Cecon Patnaik is a qualified engineer serving in a Multi-National Company at Hyderabad which is admitted by the informant. He had gone abroad on deputation and has returned back. Unless he is permitted to go and join his job at hyderabad great prejudice will be caused to him and for such reason CRLMA No. 16 of 2006 should be dismissed in limine and condition No. (1) stipulated in the order of the Sessions Court may be suitably modified or waived. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY the bail application as filed before the Sessions Court on 6. 2. 2006 at about 1. 00 p. m. and the order passed that day reveals that the LCR was called for. The Sessions Court disposed of the bail application on 7. 2. 2006 in the first hour without perusing the LCR. This court in course of hearing directed to file an affidavit as to whether the State Counsel was in possession of the relevant documents so as to enable him to oppose the bail application when the bail application was taken up for hearing before the Sessions Court. This Court also directed the investigating officer concerned to file an affidavit indicating as to whether the prosecution requires the presence of accused Cecon Parnaik any further for the purpose of investigation. The investigating officer in his affidavit has stated that he verified the records and also ascertained from the IIC of cuttack Mahila P. S. that no Case Diary was available with the State Counsel or the Court when the bail application was taken up for hearing on 7. 2. 2006. By another affidavit he has also stated that presence of accused Cecon Patnaik may be required during the course of investigation and that the investigation was still under progress. 2. 2006. By another affidavit he has also stated that presence of accused Cecon Patnaik may be required during the course of investigation and that the investigation was still under progress. Thus it appears that when the bail application was taken up for hearing by the Sessions Court neither the Case Diary nor the LCR was available. ( 8 ) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chhaila Pradhan v. Bansidhar Pradhan, held that bail granted illegally and/or improperly by wrong and arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion can be cancelled by the High court under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even if there be no additional circumstances against an accused appearing in the record after the grant of bail. This Court also expressed similar view in the case of State of Orissa v. Bipin Behera. In another decision in the case of Sk. Imam v. State, this Court held that while considering a bail application a Court is required to assess the facts and circumstances to find out if a prima facie case is made out, nature and gravity of the offence, manner in which the crime was allegedly committed, antecedents of the accused, i. e. to say if he has a criminal record or whether there is chance of repeating the offence or committing more crime, securing attendance of the accused at the time of trial, chances of abusing the liberty and hampering the investigation or fair trial and such other matters of the like nature. In a recent decision of the Supreme court reported in State of U. P. v. Amarmani tripathy, it has been held :"the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. " ( 9 ) THUS the cardinal principle of law is that a Court while considering bail application is not only required to assess the existing facts and circumstances, but also to evaluate the materials available to arrive at the conclusion as to the nature and gravity of the accusation and as to whether a prima facie case is made out. It is also required to consider the manner in which the alleged crime was committed, the antecedent of the accused and the likelihood of securing his attendance at the time of trial, his abusing the liberty or interfering with the investigation or fair trial. ( 10 ) THE consideration of a Court while granting bail and that in a case for cancellation of bail are totally different. Bail granted to an accused may be cancelled on the grounds : (a) That the accused has misconducted himself or that cancellation of bail is necessary because of some new facts; (b) Bail granted illegally or improperly or by wrong and arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion can be cancelled even if there is absence of supervening circumstances against the accused after bail was granted; (c) Bail granted due to suppression of facts and/or on the basis of forged document, thereby playing fraud on the Court. (d) Calling for the Case Diary and granting of opportunity of hearing to public prosecutor is not an empty formality, and last but not the least. (e) An offence triable by a Court of Session being heinous, granting bail within a few days of arrest when investigation is not completed amounts to improper exercise of discretion. (See Prasanta Kr. Dhalv. State) ( 11 ) CONSIDERING the present case in the touchstone of the settled principles of law some of which have been enumerated above, this Court finds that the Sessions court completely lost sight of the basic ingredients of the offences under Sections 307 and 498-A 1pc and without perusing the LCR or up-to-date Case Diary or trying to find out as to whether a prima facie case existed, passed the order granting bail to the accused persons in haste. But then to appreciate the correct position, this Court called upon the State Counsel to produce the LCR and the Case Diary. But then to appreciate the correct position, this Court called upon the State Counsel to produce the LCR and the Case Diary. It appears that in the meanwhile the investigation of the case has been entrusted to the Human rights Protection Cell, and as would be evident from the affidavit filed by prosecution the investigation is still under progress. It is submitted that in the meanwhile the mother-in-law of the informant after her arrest has been released on bail. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations made against the accused persons and the materials available in the Case diary and as six months have passed in the meanwhile and as there is no likelihood of the offences being repeated, nor is there any reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the order granting bail to the accused persons should not be interfered with, and this Court orders accordingly. The CRLMA No. 16 of 2006 is thus disposed of. ( 12 ) SO far as CRLMA No. 17 of 2006 is concerned, appreciating the submission of Mr. H. S. Misra, learned counsel, this Court feels that the direction of the sessions Court to the accused-petitioner to appear before the IIC of Mahila P. S. once a week, i. e. Sunday, at 10. 30 a. m. till submission of final form/charge-sheet would cause prejudice to the accused. However this Court is conscious that once the said accused is allowed to leave the State, there may be dent in further investigation consequently delaying disposal of the criminal case. In such circumstances this Court in modification of condition No. (i) stipulated in the order of the Sessions Court directs the accused-petitioner to appear before the Court below on each date to which the G. R. Case will be posted and not to leave the State of Orissa until disposal of the said case. With this direction, CRLMA No. 17 of 2006 is disposed of. This Court further directs the court (s) below to take effective steps for expeditious disposal of the case. Application disposed of. .