JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- Rajmal complainant (father of the deceased) has filed the instant petition under section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for cancellation of bail granted by this Court to respondent no. 2 Sachin Kumar accused in FIR No. 19 dated 24.1.2007, under section 302 IPC and sections 25/30 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Gohana, District Sonepat vide order dated 6.11.2008, Annexure P/2, in Criminal Misc. No. M-24099 of 2008. 2. Vide order dated 30.3.2009 passed by this Court in the instant petition, order dated 6.11.2008, Annexure P/2 was recalled by allowing instant petition and it was ordered that bail petition bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-24099 of 2008 filed by respondent no. 2 shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Respondent no. 2 preferred appeal against said order. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 136-137 of 2010 vide order dated 15.1.2010 set aside order dated 30.3.2009 passed by this Court and remanded the matter to this Court for fresh decision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. At the outset it may be noticed that pursuant to order dated 30.3.2009 passed by this Court, respondent no. 2 surrendered on 8.10.2009 as stated by learned State counsel on instructions from SI Chander Gupt. 5. It is also stated by learned counsel for the parties that prosecution evidence in the case has been recorded and statements of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. have also been recorded and the case is now fixed for 25.5.2010 for final arguments before the trial court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent no. 2 obtained bail order dated 6.11.2008 by concealment and misrepresentation although sufficient evidence had come against him during the trial. However, this contention cannot be accepted because vide order dated 30.3.2009 bail granted to respondent no. 2 was cancelled on this ground but the same has been set aside by Hon’ble Apex Court observing that the complainant could challenge the bail order on merits in the higher court and bail order could not be cancelled by the same court on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to averments made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the instant petition that respondent no. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to averments made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the instant petition that respondent no. 2 after being released on bail threatened the complainant-petitioner with dire consequences and the petitioner made application to Superintendent of Police, Sonepat regarding the incident. However, bail cannot be cancelled on this ground at this stage because prosecution evidence had already been recorded by the trial court and therefore, there would not be any question of extending any threat by respondent no. 2 to the petitioner if respondent no. 2 is now released on bail. In addition thereto, learned State counsel on instructions from SI Chander Gupt states that no such application as alleged by the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the petition was received in the office of Superintendent of Police, Sonepat. It is also so stated by respondent no. 1 State in its reply. Consequently, no ground for cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 6.11.2008, Annexure P/2 is made out. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed. Respondent no. 2 shall consequently be released on bail on furnishing fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Sonepat. ----------------