BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS bail application has been filed although the petitioner had earlier by an order dated 21. 02. 2005 been granted bail by this court. The reason for the petitioner filing this bail application after his release is the intervening cancellation of bail order passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge on 05. 04. 2006 whereby the bail granted by this court (i. e. the High Court) was cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge. ( 2 ) APART from the fact that it is highly improper for a Sessions Court to cancel the bail which has been granted by the High Court, there is the added circumstance that the petitioner s counsel was not even heard before the order was passed. Thus, not only is the order improper, it is also in violation of the principles of natural justice. It may also be pointed out that in Vishnu dutt Sharma v. State: 2000 [1] JCC [delhi] 256, a learned single judge of this court held:-"it is well settled that the bail granted by the High Court operates till its cancellation under sub-section (2) of section 439 Cr. P. C. by the High Court. That being so, learned Additional Sessions Judge has no power to cancel the bail granted by this Court. Consequently, the impugned order cancelling the petitioner s bail cannot be allowed to stand as it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. " ( 3 ) EVEN apart from the merits (or demerits) of the order, the fact remains that the only circumstance which weighed with the learned Additional Sessions judge in passing the order dated 05. 04. 2006 cancelling the bail earlier granted to the petitioner was a letter written by one Pravesh Kumar (brother of the deceased) to the Additional Sessions Judge stating that the petitioner, after his release on bail, accompanied by 4-5 boys smokes cigarettes in front of their house, threatens and abuses so that they may take back their case. No dates have been given as to when the threats have been meted out. No dates have been given as to when the threats have been meted out. It is on the basis of this allegation that a request for cancellation of bail was made and which was promptly accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge without, of course, hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner when the petitioner, who was present in court, had requested for a pass-over as stated at the bar by the learned counsel appearing before this court. The petitioner, who was present was straightway taken into custody. The important fact is that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the entire evidence qua him was complete. No witnesses remain to be examined and even the statement of the petitioner had been recorded. There was no question of there being any intimidation of any of the witnesses or of taking back the case because all that was required to be done qua him had already been done before the court in the trial. This is one important circumstance which could have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner if he had been heard by the court below. Unfortunately, that opportunity was not granted and consequently the result was the cancellation of bail order. ( 4 ) EARLIER when this court had granted bail, it had granted bail on the circumstance that the petitioner has already spent over 7 years in custody and there was no likelihood of the trial being completed within a short period, particularly in view of the fact that the trial started de novo and the co- accused Sohan Bir had been summoned again. Keeping the petitioner in custody for any further length of time would be a travesty of justice. The petitioner is, accordingly, entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court. This application stands disposed of. .