JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, learned advocate for the opposite party files affidavit-in-opposition in this Court as per direction passed by this Court on 21-12-2011. Let it be kept with the record. 2. This application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for cancellation of bail has been taken out by the Jaiswal Trade & Commerce Pvt. Ltd., mainly on the following grounds : a) that the petitioner suppressed material facts before this Court on the date bail was granted to him by this Court under section 439 of the Code Criminal Procedure ; and b) that the opposite party no. 2, Anand Kothari, had threatened Prem Chand Jailswal, the petitioner herein of dire consequences in case of failure to withdraw the case initiated against him. 3. Heard Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Perused the order passed by the Ld. Magistrate as well as by this Court together with the forwarding report and the G. D. Entry being Entry No. 880 dated January, 2011 and the letter dated 01.11.2011 addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, South Port Police Station. 4. Two applications for bail under section 439 Cr. P. C were filed by the opposite party no. 2, one in the court of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore and another in this Court. The application for bail filed by him in the Court of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore was heard on 24-10-2011 and the Ld. Magistrate, upon consideration of the materials on record and the submission of the parties, rejected the prayer for bail and allowed the prayer of the Investigating Officer granting police custody of the opposite party no. 2 till 29-10-2011. The application for bail dated 24-10-2011 filed in this Hon’ble Court was taken up on 25-10-2011 for hearing. 5. It is true that two applications have been filed simultaneously by the opposite party no. 2 praying for bail at different forum on the same date, but, in both the courts, upon consideration of the materials facts on record, disposed of the applications. 6. The Ld. Magistrate rejected the prayer, while this Court, upon perusal of the case diary and in presence of the Investigating Officer, was pleased to allow the prayer for bail. 7. Mr. 6. The Ld. Magistrate rejected the prayer, while this Court, upon perusal of the case diary and in presence of the Investigating Officer, was pleased to allow the prayer for bail. 7. Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 ought to have mentioned on 25-10-2011 that order of police custody was passed by the ld. trial court. Had this information been given to this Court, this Court would not have granted bail. 8. Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for the petitioner also has drawn attention of this court to paragraph nos. 5 & 6 of the application under section 439 Cr. P.C. filed in the High Court on 24-10-2011. It has been mentioned clearly that the opposite party was languishing in police custody since the date of arrest, which was not true. 9. However, Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for the petitioner has not touched the merit of the order passed by this Court. 10. The principles relating to cancellation of bail or rejection of bail are distinct and different. Bail can be rejected on various grounds. While once bail is granted, that liberty can be curtailed only in rarest and exceptional cases, such as, suppression of material fact, committing fraud on court in the matter of obtaining bail, threatening of witnesses etc. 11. In the instant case, the order passed by this Court unequivocally shows that the Hon’ble Court has gone through the case diary and in presence of the Investigating Officer as well the de facto complainant represented by the counsel, passed the order granting bail on merit. The position would have been otherwise, had the Ld. Magistrate allowed the bail afterwards after rejection of the same by the High Court. 12. Therefore, in true sense, there is no suppression of material fact, while the bail application was moved before this Court and that too in presence of the Investigating Officer, in presence of the case dossier and also in presence of the de facto complainant. The letter addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, South Port Police Station, Kolkata do not inspire confidence. It can be done by anybody. No positive action and no adverse report are noted by the police. 13. This being the fact, I find it inexpedient to allow the prayer for cancellation of bail. However, the opposite party no. The letter addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, South Port Police Station, Kolkata do not inspire confidence. It can be done by anybody. No positive action and no adverse report are noted by the police. 13. This being the fact, I find it inexpedient to allow the prayer for cancellation of bail. However, the opposite party no. 2 is directed to comply with the directions passed by this Court in the matter of making himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when called for. 14. The application for cancellation is, thus, disposed of. 15. Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, to the parties on usual undertakings.