JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo for the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner has come up against the order dated 11.02.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro, whereby the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner on 20.08.2007 on the ground that he obtained anticipatory bail on concealing the truth and that he filed wrong affidavit which did not match with the official records maintained by his employer. The petitioner’s wife filed a complaint case alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner on 09.06.2006. She went to her Sasural where she came to know that the petitioner was already married with one Geeta Devi and had two children from her. She further alleged that she was assaulted by the petitioner and his other family members and she had to return to her parent’s house. Her ornaments and clothes were snatched away by Geeta Devi. Legal notice was sent on 02.02.2007 and thereafter, on 11.02.2007, the petitioner along with his family members came to Bokaro and ransacked the house of her parents and also manhandled her father. After holding enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., cognizance under Sections 498A, 495 and 506 Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner and his other family members. The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Bokaro on 27.07.2007 which was granted to him by order dated 20th August, 2007 after hearing the complainant as well as the petitioner. The Order of the learned Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the petition. The Complainant/wife thereafter filed an application before the Sessions Judge, Bokaro for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the ground that in the application for anticipatory bail, false statements were made in paragraph – 4(iv) by the petitioner and he also suppressed the truth from the Court. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, by the impugned Order dated 11.02.2009, cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner on the ground as already noticed above, which has been challenged in this application. In the language of the Supreme Court, the consideration of application for grant of bail stands on different footings than the cancellation of bail. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, by the impugned Order dated 11.02.2009, cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner on the ground as already noticed above, which has been challenged in this application. In the language of the Supreme Court, the consideration of application for grant of bail stands on different footings than the cancellation of bail. Even 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 it should not be resorted to lightly. It is 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. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra [ (2004) 2 SCC 362 ]. In the present case, the complainant/ wife alleged that the petitioner/ husband in his application for anticipatory bail made false statements in sub paragraphs of Para-4 of the application, particularly in para 4(iv), wherein he stated that it is false to say that Geeta Devi was his married wife and in fact, Geeta Devi was the wife of his elder brother namely Ajay Kumar Shrivastava. According to the complainant/wife, this was a false statement as the petitioner was in service of Indian NAVY and his service records would show that he has disclosed name of Geeta Devi as his wife and two children also. From the order granting bail by the Sessions Judge (Annexure-4), it appears that this allegation of the complainant that Geeta Devi was the wife of the petitioner was also taken into consideration and after hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner after observing as follows:- “This is a case of matrimonial dispute between both the husband and wife. The wife has lived only for 3 days at her Sasural and started claiming that her husband (petitioner) was having illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. The wife has lived only for 3 days at her Sasural and started claiming that her husband (petitioner) was having illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. No document has been filed by the complainant in proof of her claim that petitioner has introduced Geeta Devi as his wife in his Service Book.” It appears that the complainant/ wife along with her application for cancellation of bail, filed some documents issued by the employer of the petitioner from which it appeared that the service records maintained by the employer indicated that on the declarations made by the petitioner, the name of Geeta Devi as well as the names of two children from her were recorded in the service records. The correspondence between the employer and the complainant/ wife was annexed as Annexure in her application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge held in the impugned order canceling bail of the petitioner that the papers which was brought before the Court amply established the truth of the relationship between Geets Devi and the petitioner and therefore, it amounted to concealing the truth as well as filing wrong affidavit in Court which did not match with the official records maintained by the employer. From perusal of the application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, which has been annexed in this application as Annexure-3, it does not appear that any fact was suppressed by the petitioner/ husband. As a matter of fact, in paragraph 4(iv), the petitioner stated that it is false to state that Geeta Devi was his married wife but in fact she was the wife of his elder brother Ajay Kumar Shrivastava. The learned Sessions Judge, while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, noticed the aforesaid fact and also the allegations made by the complainant/wife that Geeta Devi was the married wife of the petitioner, but on consideration of fact that no document was produced by the complainant/ wife in that regard, granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, if no document was filed before the Sessions Judge to establish any allegation by the complainant then for that latches, the petitioner cannot be held guilty. It was the duty of the person making the allegations to establish those allegations. Therefore, if no document was filed before the Sessions Judge to establish any allegation by the complainant then for that latches, the petitioner cannot be held guilty. It was the duty of the person making the allegations to establish those allegations. In any view of the matter, this very point was raised before the Sessions Judge and he, on consideration of those facts, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that a totally new fact emerged after grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner which was not within the knowledge of the complainant/ wife. There is no allegation by the complainant/ wife that the petitioner is either misusing his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activities or is interfering with the course of investigation or attempted to tamper with the evidence or the witnesses or he is indulged in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial or that there is likelihood of his absconding or fleeing away to another country and therefore, in view of the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court for cancellation of bail, the ground on which the Sessions Judge has cancelled the bail of the petitioner, cannot be said to be legal and valid. The decision of a Single Bench of this Court reported in 2006 Cr. L.J. 925, relied on by the opposite party no. 2 would not be applicable in the present case since the facts and situation were totally different in that case. In that case, the High Court cancelled the bail on the ground that the petitioner obtained bail by stating that one Paramjeet Singh was the main accused who had already been granted bail earlier though the materials on record revealed otherwise. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.02.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro canceling anticipatory bail of the petitioner is set aside and the order dated 20.08.2007 granting anticipatory bail to him is hereby revived.