JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional Public prosecutor for & on behalf of the State Respondent. 2. Present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.05.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in ST 68 (NT/D)/05 whereby, for the alleged involvement of the petitioners under Section323/326/302/34 of IPC, bail granted earlier in favour of petitioners by learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar was cancelled at the complaint of the complainants. According to the petitioners, one Smt. Shelli Begum, wife of the elder brother of the accused/petitioners, namely, Md. Nurul Haque had lodged an FIR on 26.02.2005 alleging, inter-alia, that Md. Abdul Rakib, father of the accused petitioners as well as father of Md. Nurul Haque died on 26.02.2005 at night, consequent upon the assault made by the accused petitioners, their mother Anwara Begum and sister Rahela Khanam and in reference thereto an FIR Chauraibari P.S. Case No. 13/2005 was registered. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner/accused persons, their mother and sister and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The petitioners/accused persons and two other accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and the case, namely, ST 68/2005 was proceeded with before learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. Smt. Shelli Begum and Md. Nurul Haque were examined and cross-examined as P.W. 1 & 2 respectively on 06.08.2007. Thereafter, PW-3 was examined and cross-examined on 07.08.07 and three more witnesses, namely, PW-4, 5 & 6 were examined & cross-examined on 24.08.2007. 3. It appears that on 08.03.05 Smt. Anwara Begum, w/o. Late Abdul Rakib had also lodged an FIR against the aforesaid Smt. Shelli Begum and Md. Nurul Haque and in that reference Criminal case was registered as Churaibari P.S. Case No. 14/05 under Section 323/324/34 of IPC. After investigation, police submitted final report twice but due to objection of the present petitioners, the final reports could not be accepted by the concerned Court and after re-investigation chargesheet was filed against Smt. Shelli Begum and Md. Nurul Haque and in context ST 39/07 is pending for adjudication before learned Additional Sessions Judge along with ST 68/2005. After investigation, police submitted final report twice but due to objection of the present petitioners, the final reports could not be accepted by the concerned Court and after re-investigation chargesheet was filed against Smt. Shelli Begum and Md. Nurul Haque and in context ST 39/07 is pending for adjudication before learned Additional Sessions Judge along with ST 68/2005. Both the above cases are being adjudicated simultaneously by the same Court. It appears that on 03.08.2007, Smt. Shelli Begum and her husband Nurul Haque submitted a petition through their learned Counsel before learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in the connected case No. ST 68/2005 alleging, Inter alia, that they were threatened on 31.07.2007 at 11.00 P.M. by Md. Mainul Haque and Md. Faijul Haque, when the petitioners accused entered into their house and threatened to assault and kill them and started calling them and also tried to enter into their house by breaking door but due to hue and cry raised by them, the neighbouring people rushed to the house and then the accused persons filed away. Due to fear of the petitioners/accused persons Smt. Shelli Begum and her husband have become confined in their house as the accused persons are making movement on the road with Dao, Kirich and sharp cutting weapons. 4. It appears that on the complaint indicated above against the petitioners/accused learned Sessions Judge directed the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station to conduct an enquiry and to report the matter. 5. It appears that in compliance to the direction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Officer-in Charge of the Police Station submitted his report vide letter dated 06.08.2007 indicating that both the petitioners/accused had appeared in the house of Md. Nurul Haque and Smt. Shelli Begum and asked them not to give any statement before the learned Court during the trial, otherwise, they will face dire consequences. According to the Police report dated 16.08.2007, the petitioners accused have entered into the house of complainant Smt. Shelli Begum and Md. Nurul Haque on 31.07.07 at day time and, however, the matter was not reported to the Police Station. 6. According to the Police report dated 16.08.2007, the petitioners accused have entered into the house of complainant Smt. Shelli Begum and Md. Nurul Haque on 31.07.07 at day time and, however, the matter was not reported to the Police Station. 6. It appears that on 25.08.2007, when the case was listed before the concerned Court an application on behalf of the learned Public prosecutor was submitted before the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar with prayer for cancellation of the bail of the accused petitioners and on the same day learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.08.2007 has cancelled the earlier bail granted in favour of the present petitioners accused. 7. According to Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners/accused, the prosecution cases were proceeded with from time to time in the prescribed manner at the direction and pleasure of the learned Additional Sessions Judge up to 25.08.2007 and as many as 9 (nine) prosecution witnesses were examined & cross-examined till 25.08.2007 and as per schedule fixed overall 28 (twenty eight) witnesses were examined up to 29.08.2007. 8. According to Mr. Bhowmik, the main complainant Smt. Shelli Begum and Md. Nurul Haque were already examined on 06.08.2007 i.e. much before the order for cancellation of bail was passed on 25.08.2007 and in the complaint dated 03.08.2007, both the complainant Smt. Shelli Begum and Md. Nurul Haque have not disclosed that when the present petitioners/accused entered into their house on 31.07.07 at 11.00 P.M. they had anyway asked these complainants not to give evidence in support of prosecution case. The complainants were also not said to have been threatened by the petitioners/accused. 9. According to Mr. Bhowmik, the complaint dated 03.08.2007 referred to have taken place at day time was indicating a different story and apparent contradiction could be noticed in the report dated 16.08.2007 of the Officer-in-charge, Churaibari P.S., Tripura, where the petitioners/accused were said to have entered into house of the complainant at daytime, whereas, the complainant claimed that the petitioners/accused had entered into their house at 11.00 P.M. on 31.07.07. The petition of complainant indicates that incidence of 31.07.2007 was reported to the Police, whereas, report dated 16.08.2007 of the Officer-in-Charge, Churaibari P.S. revealed that the incidence was not reported to the Police Station. 10. As submitted by Mr. The petition of complainant indicates that incidence of 31.07.2007 was reported to the Police, whereas, report dated 16.08.2007 of the Officer-in-Charge, Churaibari P.S. revealed that the incidence was not reported to the Police Station. 10. As submitted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar without providing the opportunity to the petitioners/accused for controverting the allegations, and without properly scrutinizing the allegations in the facts and circumstances and without arriving at finding that the said incidence dated 31.07.2007 had materially affected Smt. Shelli Begum and Md. Nurul Haque in their giving testimony in support of the prosecution case, the bail can not be cancelled. 11. According to Mr. Bhowmik, all the twenty eight prosecution witnesses were examined on or before 29.08.2007 and the main complainants were already examined on 06.08.2007, then there was no scope left over that the complainant Smt. Shelli Begum and Md. Nurul Haque were to be threatened for their coming forward to give evidence in support of prosecution, as such, in a mechanical manner, the bail granted in favour of the petitioners/accused was cancelled. 12. According to Mr. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused, earlier bail was granted under Section 439(2) of IPC, however, the learned Additional Sessions Judge without appreciating the facts & circumstances, more so, in a mechanical manner has cancelled the earlier bail without appreciating that there is a distinction in the parameter of granting bail to that of cancelling the bail of the appellant in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1999 Cri. L.J. 4063 (Subhendu Mishra, Appellant v. Subrat Kumar Mishra and Anr. Respondent). 13. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel has also relied upon the decision in AIR 2004 SC 2894(Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra) where it was observed: In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar 1968 (4) SCC 481 the grounds for cancellation under Sections 437(5) and 439 (2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Section 437(1) of (2) or Section 439 misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or investigations, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going under ground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. these grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to. Para-9. It is, therefore, clear that when a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled. Rejection of bail stands on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to. 14. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned public prosecutor on the other hand has very fairly submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge is empowered to cancel the bail granted in favour of the accused provided such persons has violated conditions of the bail or flouted the terms & directions while granting the bail or the persons to whom bail has been granted if directly or indirectly interferes with the course of justice or is making any attempt to tamper with evidences or the witnesses are threatened directly or indirectly by indulging in the similar activities hampering smooth investigation or trial. 15. On the basis of the records, Mr. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor, however, has fairly submitted that in the present case the complainant were already examined and cross examined on 06.08.2007 itself. 16. Therefore, in my respectful consideration the complaint dated 03.08.2007 relied upon for cancellation of bail of the petitioners/accused on 25.08.2007 was not comprising of prayer or any material for the purpose or the basis to show that the complainants were obstructed to give evidence as this was over on 06.08.2007 itself much before the cancellation of bail on 28.05.2007. 17. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused and perused the documents, I find that on the date of cancellation of the bail (granted earlier), there was no material or occasion that the petitioners/accused were in a position to influence anyway or were to interfere with the course of justice or were to threaten the prosecution witnesses more specifically, the complainants, namely, Smt. Shelli Begum and Md. Nurul Haque. Nurul Haque. Since their evidences were already recorded on 06.08.2007 and by 29.08.2007 as many as 28 (twenty eight) prosecution witnesses were also examined and cross-examined and the prosecution case was smoothly proceeding with the case without anything apparent of the record showing apprehension likelihood of hampering the course of justice; since the investigation was already completed and the chargesheet was submitted and the trial was going on and there was no specific allegations in the complaint on 03.08.2007 by the complainant that they were threatened to be dire consequences if they were to come to give their testimony in support of the prosecution case. Since, there is no cause in existence, therefore, after going to the complaint dated 03.08.2007 and the report dated 16.08.2007 of the 'Officer-in-Charge I find that there is apparent contradiction about the happening of the incidence as well as also contradiction in the sense that according to the complainant, the incidence was reported to the Police but according to the Police the report of the incident was never made. 18. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has not indicated its perception and arrived at the finding that incidence of 31.07.2007 had any way influenced the prosecution witnesses. The learned Judge has also not indicated anything about the Petitioners/accused that they interfered with the course of justice or attempted to tamper with evidences or witnesses or threatened the witnesses in the investigation or trial. Since at the relevant date i.e. on 25.08.2007 nothing was left to be done on the part of complainants, namely, Smt. Shelli Begum and Md. Nurul Haque that they could be influenced. 19. In my respectful consideration, learned Additional Sessions Judge without scrutinizing the materials on record in a mechanical manner has cancelled the bail granted earlier. 20. In the facts & circumstances, the impugned order is not legally sustainable, therefore, it is set-aside and the petitioners/accused are entitled to be enlarged on bail on the previous terms & conditions. 21. After the order dated 25.08.2007 has been set-aside the petitioners/accused already in custody, are to be released forthwith. The operative part of this order to be conveyed today. However, it is specifically observed that any observation made here shall not affect the merits of the ST 68 of 2005 as well as any connected case to be adjudicated by the Sessions Court/Trial Court. 22. The operative part of this order to be conveyed today. However, it is specifically observed that any observation made here shall not affect the merits of the ST 68 of 2005 as well as any connected case to be adjudicated by the Sessions Court/Trial Court. 22. In view of the observations made above the main Criminal Revision Petition No. 108 of 2007 is allowed. Petition allowed