Judgment : ( 1 ) IN this application under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner Vikash Singh, who is the informant, has prayed for cancellation of regular bail granted by this Court to o. P. No. 2 - Nirbhay Singh, in B. A. No. 6324 of 2005 by order dated 1-12-2005. ( 2 ) THE case of the informant is that First information was lodged by the petitioner on 12-8-2005 before the police alleging, inter alia, that at the time of construction of road by the informant, the accused persons along with 60 other persons armed with fire-arms and deadly weapons came over the place of occurrence and started assaulting and firing upon the people. The accused persons tried to enter in the house of the informant and started blind firing on which the cousin brother of the informant came with fire-arm in self-defence and made some air-firing. The police instituted a case against Dilip Singh, nirbhay Singh, Dinesh Singh and unknown person under sections 147, 148, 149, 337, 452, 307. 427, I. P. C. and S. 27 of the Anns act. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 Nirbhay singh was arrested and his bail petition was refused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur. The respondent No. 2 Nirbhay Singh then filed bail petition in this Court being B. A. No. 6324 of 2005. Further case of the informant-petitioner is that after inves-tigation police submitted a charge-sheet on 9-11-2005 under sections 147, 148, 149, 337, 452, 307, 427/ 302, I. P. C. and S. 27 of the Arms Act. At the time when bail petition was moved, the charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent No. 2 under Section 302, I. P. C. also. It is further stated that in the bail petition, respondent No. 2 made false affidavit that there is no criminal antecedent or criminal history against him. ( 3 ) THE opposite party No. 2, who was granted bail, has been noticed and a counter affidavit was filed on his behalf. The respondent denied to have made any false statement in the bail petition. ( 4 ) MR. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has drawn my attention to various documents annexed with the affidavit and submitted that the accused has criminal antecedent inasmuch as several criminal cases were filed against him. The respondent denied to have made any false statement in the bail petition. ( 4 ) MR. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has drawn my attention to various documents annexed with the affidavit and submitted that the accused has criminal antecedent inasmuch as several criminal cases were filed against him. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused obtained bail by suppressing material facts about his criminal antecedent. ( 5 ) THE accused-opposite party No. 2. was granted bail by this Court in B. A. No. 6324/ 2005 by order dated 1-12-2005 which reads as under : "heard the parties. It appears that one of the co-accused, namely, Dinesh Singh having similar allegation has been granted bail in B. A. No. 6264/2005. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, namely, Nirbhay singh is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- ( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Sakchi PS case No. 189 of 2005 corresponding to G. R. case No. 1714 of 2005. " ( 6 ) IT has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the informant that another co-accused, namely, Dinesh Singh having similar allegation has been enlarged on bail by a Bench of this Court in B. A. No. 6264/2005. The question as to what should be the prime consideration for deciding an application for cancellation of bail, has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1984 SC 372 ). Their Lordships held as under (Para 6) : "the High Court completely over-looked the fact that it was not for it to decide whether the bail should be granted but the application before it was for cancellation of the bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail and the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail and the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether, he is also likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with the evidence" ( 7 ) HAVING considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties I do not find any strong reason for cancelling the bail granted to opposite party No. 2 in the aforementioned bail petition. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. Application dismissed. --- *** --- .