Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Baldev Krishan Shukla has filed this application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the regular bail granted to Poonam and Chandan on May 4, 2005 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula under the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. 2. Baldev Krishan Shukla is the complainant on the basis of whose statement, F.I.R. 75 was registered at Police Station, Pinjore on May 2, 2004 against Poonams husband Vijay Kumar as well as against Poonam and Chandan. The allegation was that the three of them were running "committees" in five groups. In ordinary parlance these "committees" are groups of persons who make monthly contribution, which are then collected and handed over to one member of the group by turn. This is like a saving scheme. The members save money and occasionally withdraw their savings in lumpsum to use the amount for making personal investments. The accused were running five such groups. The complainant was cheated when the so-called "committees" collapsed. He lost Rs. 3.60 Lacs. Many others were also cheated by the accused of various sums, ranging from Rs. 63,000/- in the case of Anurag to Rs. 2.31 Lacs in the case of Vinod Garg. The total amount was nearly Rs. 42 lacs. 3. After the case was registered Vijay Kumar absconded while his wife Poonam was arrested on October 20, 2004. Her application for bail was dismissed on November 15, 2004. A further application for bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula was dismissed on November 17, 2004. Regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Criminal Misc. 57916-M of 2004) was dismissed by this Court on March 7, 2005 with the following observations : "No ground for bail at this stage since the amount involved is about 42 lacs and the main accused Vijay Kumar husband of the petitioner is still absconding and is stated to be abroad. It will be expected that the police will more speedily get Vijay Kumar extradited from where he is hiding. The petitioner will be at liberty to seek bail after Vijay Kumar is apprehended or the cheated amount is returned to the various complainants." 4. However, Poonam and Vijay Kumar managed to secure bail a few months later on May 4, 2005 under the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. 5. The petitioner will be at liberty to seek bail after Vijay Kumar is apprehended or the cheated amount is returned to the various complainants." 4. However, Poonam and Vijay Kumar managed to secure bail a few months later on May 4, 2005 under the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. 5. Baldev Krishan Shukla sought cancellation of bail but his application was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Panchkula on May 30, 2005. 6. During the course of the present proceedings for cancellation of the bail an order was passed on July 13, 2007 which was to the following effect : "The failure of the Panchkula police to apprehend Vijay Kumar or to extradite him from Manila is very serious. It appears that senior officers of the police are not taking interest in the investigation to ensure the arrest of the accused who had allegedly escaped with Rs. 42 lacs and is still at large. Superintendent of Police, Panchkula is directed to personally supervise the investigation of this case to ensure that Vijay Kumar is traced. In case it is found that his wife Poonam respondent 2 had been in touch with Vijay Kumar after her release from jail, the matter of cancellation of bail shall be considered." 7. Learned counsel for the accused has forcefully resisted cancellation of bail on the ground that the accused should not be deprived of their liberty if one of the absconding accused has left the country and started living abroad. The conduct of the accused whose bail is to be cancelled should be the material consideration and not what the absconder has done. Ordinarily they have not misused bail and have not tried to win over witnesses or tamper with evidence then bail should not be cancelled. It is true that in the present case the accused have not misused the concession of bail and have been regularly appearing before the Trial Court. It is equally true that the accused have not tried to win over witnesses or tamper with evidence. Nevertheless, the accused have completely failed to help the Investigating Officer in locating Vijay Kumar, who is presently stated to be living in Phillipines. It is inconceivable that Poonam would not know the whereabouts of her husband. By adamantly refusing to disclose where Vijay Kumar is hiding, Poonam is constructively giving him shelter and making it impossible for the police to reach him. It is inconceivable that Poonam would not know the whereabouts of her husband. By adamantly refusing to disclose where Vijay Kumar is hiding, Poonam is constructively giving him shelter and making it impossible for the police to reach him. This amounts to interfering in the course of justice and consequently leads to the conclusion that the absconding accused is being harboured by his wife. 8. Counsel for Poonam and Chandan had appeared on July 13, 2007 and in his presence, Superintendent of Police, Panchkula was directed to personally supervise the investigation to ensure that Vijay Kumar is traced and, in case it was found that Poonam had been in touch with Vijay Kumar after her release, the question of cancellation of her bail would be considered. 9. It has been categorically asserted by the counsel for the petitioner that Vijay Kumar was living at Manila with Poonams brother. 10. Since the accused-respondents have interfered with the investigation and have declined to disclose the exact whereabouts, address and telephone numbers of Vijay Kumar, it is a fit case in which their bail must be cancelled. 11. This, application is, therefore, allowed. Bail granted to Poonam and Chandan on May 4, 2005 is hereby cancelled. They shall be taken into custody forthwith.