JUDGMENT 1.This petition has been preferred under Section 439 (2) of Cr.PC for cancellation of bail order dated 6-2-2013 passed by 1st ASJ, Guna in Bail Application No. 13/2013. 2. Brief facts of the case are that this is second application for cancellation of bail before this Court. The first application numbered as M.Cr.C. No. 971/2013 was filed by petitioner No. 1 for modification/clarification of order dated 1-2-2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 701/13. By order dated 15-3-2013, this Court modified the said order and deleted direction part of order dated 1-2-2013 upon which the order dated 6-2-13 passed by the First ASJ, Guna, in Bail Application No. 13/13 granting bail to respondent No. 1 was passed. Being dissatisfied with the same, respondent No. 1 filed SLP (Cri.) No. 2826/2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been allowed on the ground that proceedings before this Court were misconceived. However, it was observed that the complainant will be at liberty to proceed against the order of Trial Court. As per the FIR and the charge-sheet, Dinesh Raghuvanshi was sitting alongwith others at Patanjali Kendra, Jagdish Colony, Guna. After some time, Dileep alongwith one another also joined them. Respondent No. 1 alongwith others came there and after some wordy quarrel, respondent No. 1 and Abhishek Hada took out Katta and fired at petitioner No. 2 and deceased Dileep. One shot hit at the head of petitioner No. 2 and deceased Dileep received injury at his chest, resulting in his death. As per the post-mortem report, the bullet fired at the chest of the deceased resulted into injury to the right lung and the heart resulting into his death. Petitioner No. 2 was also medically examined and wound on scalp from left fronto parietal to left temporal region was found. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 8023/2012. The same was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed a second bail application for grant of anticipatory bail, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 701/2013. The same was disposed of by order dated 1-2-13 with a short direction that "the petitioner shall surrender before the Competent Court and shall apply for regular bail and the same shall be considered upon furnishing necessary bail bond". Respondent No. 1 surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge on 6-2-2013 and preferred bail application. The same was disposed of by order dated 1-2-13 with a short direction that "the petitioner shall surrender before the Competent Court and shall apply for regular bail and the same shall be considered upon furnishing necessary bail bond". Respondent No. 1 surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge on 6-2-2013 and preferred bail application. Learned 1st ASJ, Guna, granted bail to respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved with the same, this petition has been preferred. 3. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that respondent No. 1 has been named as assailant of the deceased in a prompt FIR lodged by injured witness/petitioner No. 2. Three other witnesses have also named respondent No. 1 as firing at deceased. The aforesaid evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The learned First ASJ, Guna, did not consider merits of the case, but proceeded to grant bail by misreading the order passed by this Court. The learned First ASJ, Guna, has totally ignored the cardinal principles of law of bail resulting in miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1 is a history sheeter and after being released on bail, has threatened petitioner No. 1. On 7-2-2013, petitioner No. 1 has lodged an FIR at Police Station, Nai Sarai, Distt. Ashoknagar, at Crime No. 22/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 387 of IPC. Petitioner No. 2 moved an application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.PC before the learned Trial Court, but since in the meanwhile, this Court cancelled the bail order, vide order dated 15-3-2013, therefore, the application was withdrawn by petitioner No. 2. State Government also preferred an application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.PC before the Trial Court, but since the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the order of Trial Court granting bail, therefore, petitioner No. 1, who is the widow of deceased Dilip Singh, and petitioner No. 2, who is the first informant and cousin father-in-law of the deceased and also an injured in the incident, have preferred this application. The respondent No. 1 while filing the bail application before this Court falsely submitted that he is a Government servant, but the fact is that he has already been terminated from the service long back and the purpose was just to secure the bail order on the basis of suppression of facts of his occupation. After commission of the offence, respondent No. 1 remained absconding for a long period, therefore, police declared a reward of Rs. 20,000/- for his arrest. It is prayed that order dated 6-2-2013 passed in B.A. No. 13/2013 be set aside and respondent No. 1 be taken into custody. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that respondent No. 1 has falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 has moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court and this Court has passed the order and in view of the order passed by this Court, learned First ASJ, Guna has granted the bail to respondent No. 1. 5. In order to appreciate the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, AIR 2013 SC 296 . In Paras 7, 8 and 9, it has been observed as under : -- "7. In Gurcharan Singh and others etc. Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 , the appellant Gurcharan, who was Superintendent of Police, was charged along with other police personnel under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the IPC. During the preliminary enquiry, six alleged eye-witnesses, who were police personnel, did not support the prosecution case. However, after the FIR was lodged during the course of investigation, seven witnesses including the said six police personnel gave statements implicating appellant Gurcharan Singh. One eye-witness ASI Gopal Das made a statement under Section 164 of the Code in favour of the prosecution. Learned Sessions Judge released appellant Gurcharan Singh on bail after observing that there was little to gain by him by tampering with the witnesses who had, themselves, already tampered with their evidence by making contradictory statements. Learned Sessions Judge further observed that after reviewing the entire material he was of the opinion that there was little probability of appellant Gurcharan Singh fleeing from justice or tampering with the witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge further observed that after reviewing the entire material he was of the opinion that there was little probability of appellant Gurcharan Singh fleeing from justice or tampering with the witnesses. He noted that having regard to the character of evidence he was inclined to grant bail. The prosecution moved the High Court under Section 439 (2) of the Code for cancellation of the said order. The High Court, inter alia observed that considering the nature of the offence and the character of the evidence, the reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and a other relevant factors, it had no option but to cancel the bail. The High Court observed that learned Sessions Judge did not exercise his judicial discretion on relevant well-recognized principles. An appeal was carried from the said order to this Court. This Court observed that the powers of the High Court and the Sessions Court under Section 439 (1) of the. Code are much wider than those conferred on a Court other than the High Court and Sessions Court in respect of bail. However, certain considerations, which have to be taken into account are common to all Courts. This Court noted that gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardizing his own life being faced with a grim prospect of a possible conviction in the case; of tampering witnesses; the history of the case as well as its investigation and such other relevant grounds will have to be taken into account. To ascertain whether there is prima facie case against the accused, character of the evidence will have to be considered. While confirming the High Court's interference with the discretion exercised by the Sessions Court, this Court expressed its displeasure about the unwarranted premature comments made by the Sessions Court on the merits of the case when at that stage it was only called upon to consider whether prima facie case was made out against the accused or not. While confirming the High Court's interference with the discretion exercised by the Sessions Court, this Court expressed its displeasure about the unwarranted premature comments made by the Sessions Court on the merits of the case when at that stage it was only called upon to consider whether prima facie case was made out against the accused or not. This Court particularly referred to statement of ASI Gopal Das, recorded under Section 164 of the Code and observed that this witness had made no earlier contradictory statement and the taint of unreliability could not be attached to his statement at that stage as was done by the Sessions Court. This Court found that the Sessions Court was not alive to legal position that there was no substantive evidence recorded against the accused until the eye-witnesses were examined in the trial. Serious note was taken of the fact that the Sessions Court had not focused its attention on relevant considerations. The approach of the Sessions Judge was viewed as suffering from serious infirmity and cancellation of bail was endorsed. 8. In Puran Vs. Rambilas and another, (2001) 6 SCC 338 , the appellant therein was charged under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur released the appellant therein, on bail. The High Court cancelled the bail granted to the appellant. The said order was under challenge before this Court. It was argued that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. It was argued that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. Reliance was placed on Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, in support of this submission. This Court observed that in Dolat Ram, it was clarified that the above instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive and one such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime and that too without giving any reasons. This Court observed that in Dolat Ram, it was clarified that the above instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive and one such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime and that too without giving any reasons. This Court observed that such an order would be against the principles of law and, interest of justice would require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. This Court found that inasmuch as the Sessions Court had ignored vital materials while granting bail, the High Court had rightly cancelled the bail. It was further observed that such orders passed in heinous crimes would have serious impact on the society and an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the Trial Court has to be corrected. 9. In Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) Vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 66 , the appellant therein -- a police officer was involved in a case of fake encounter. Learned Sessions Judge released him on bail. It was evident from the bail order that learned Sessions Judge was influenced by the fact that the deceased was a dreaded criminal, against whom as many as 25 FIRs were lodged. An application for Cancellation of bail was moved before the High Court under Section 439 (2) of the Code. The High Court cancelled the bail holding that learned Sessions Judge had not kept in view the seriousness of the offence in which the high ranking police officer was involved. It was observed that past conduct or antecedents of the deceased could not have been a ground for grant of bail to the accused. This Court while dealing with the challenge to the said order held that though it is true that parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different, if the Trial Court while granting bail acts on irrelevant materials, bail can be cancelled. It was observed that perversity of a bail order can flow from the fact that irrelevant materials have been taken into consideration adding vulnerability to the order granting bail. On the facts of the case, this Court held that, that the deceased had a shady reputation and criminal antecedents, was certainly not a factor, which should have been taken into consideration while granting bail to the accused. On the facts of the case, this Court held that, that the deceased had a shady reputation and criminal antecedents, was certainly not a factor, which should have been taken into consideration while granting bail to the accused. It was the nature of the act committed by the accused which ought to have been taken into consideration. The order of the High Court was confirmed on the ground that the bail was granted on untenable grounds. The argument that supervening circumstances such as attempt to tamper with the evidence and interference with the investigation were absent and, therefore, bail could not have been cancelled by reappreciating evidence, was rejected by this Court." 6. In the instant case, as per the report lodged by complainant Dinesh Singh, on 14-8-2012, complainant was sitting alongwith Babla @ Rampratap, Dablu Singh, Suresh and Arvind Singh. After some time, Dileep and Arun also joined them. In the meantime, Abhishek Handa armed with a weapon like hockey alongwith respondent No. 1-Ranjeet Raghuwanshi and two others came there. After some verbal altercation between Ranjeet and Dileep, Ranjeef Raghuwanshi and Abhishek have fired shots at complainant and Dileep, one of which hit at the abdominal area of Dileep and he fell down. Another shot hit at the head of the complainant. Complainant and Dileep have been admitted to hospital where Dileep succumbed to his injuries. 7. It appears that application for anticipatory bail has been moved on behalf of Ranjeet, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 8023/12. As per Annexure P-5, this application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20-11-12. Thereafter, second application under Section 438 of Cr.PC was moved, which has been registered as M.Cr.C. No. 701/13. On 1-2-13, this application has been disposed of by this Court directing as under: -- "Considering the nature of the allegation and the evidence collected in the case diary, the petition is disposed of with a short direction that the petitioner shall surrender before the Competent Court and shall apply for regular bail and the same shall be considered upon furnishing necessary bail bond. With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of." In pursuance of the aforesaid order, respondent No. 1-Ranjeet Singh has surrendered before the Sessions Court and moved an application under Section 439 of Cr.PC alongwith an application under Section 44 (2) of Cr.PC. With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of." In pursuance of the aforesaid order, respondent No. 1-Ranjeet Singh has surrendered before the Sessions Court and moved an application under Section 439 of Cr.PC alongwith an application under Section 44 (2) of Cr.PC. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the application under Section 44 (2) of Cr.PC and respondent No. 1-Ranjeet Singh was taken in custody. Objection was also filed on behalf of the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, transferred the matter to First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna. An application was filed on behalf of petitioner Anshu Raghuwanshi before First ASJ seeking direction from the High Court with regard to order passed in M.Cr.C. No. 701/13, which was rejected. An application was also moved on behalf of the Town Inspector for granting police remand of accused Ranjeet Singh submitting that Ranjeet Singh is the principal accused and the weapon of offence revolver is to be recovered from him and ultimately it was directed that learned Additional Public Prosecutor shall pursue the matter before the Competent Court. After hearing on the application under Section 439 of Cr.PC and the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners, the learned ASJ granted the bail to respondent No. 1. 8. The petitioners have approached this Court by preferring M.Cr.C. No. 971/2013, which has been disposed of by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15-3-2013. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as under : -- "6. Resultantly, we hereby modify the order dated 1 -2-2013 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 701/2013 to the extent that the underlined portion in the above quoted direction part of the order shall stand deleted. Since the order dated 1-2-2013 has been modified, the order dated 6-2-2013, whereby benefit of bail has been granted to the respondent No. 2 by the Trial Court, being based on the said direction, which has been deleted, is hereby set aside. Eventually, the bail bonds of respondent No. 2-Ranjeet Singh are cancelled and it is directed that the respondent No. 2 be taken into custody forthwith. Eventually, the bail bonds of respondent No. 2-Ranjeet Singh are cancelled and it is directed that the respondent No. 2 be taken into custody forthwith. Needless to say, respondent No. 2 shall be entitled to move an application under Section 439 of Cr.PC for grant of bail, which shall be considered and decided by the Trial Court on merits in accordance with law." Against this order, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No, 2826/2013 has been preferred by respondent No. 1-Ranjeet Singh before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the Special Leave Petition by setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, however, liberty was granted to the complainant to proceed against the order of the Trial Court granting bail. Hence, this petition has been preferred. 9. From a bare reading of the order passed by this Court, it is apparent that this Court has not granted the bail to respondent No. 1, but liberty was given to respondent No. 1 to surrender before the Court and further to apply for regular bail. However, by misreading the direction given by this Court, the learned First ASJ, Guna, granted the bail to respondent No. 1. 10. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned First ASJ, Guna, it is apparent that he has observed as under : -- XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Thus, from the order, it is crystal clear that learned First ASJ has not adverted on the factors ought to have been considered while granting the bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has laid down the factors to be considered while considering the bail application. Recently, in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, AIR 2013 SC 2216 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 28 has observed as under : -- "While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances, which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words 'reasonable grounds for believing' instead of 'the evidence', which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 11. In the instant case, as pointed hereinabove, the learned First ASJ has not taken pain to consider the aforesaid aspects. When this Court has expressly given the direction that respondent No. 1 shall surrender before the Competent Court and shall apply for regular bail and the same shall be considered, it was the bounden duty of the learned First ASJ to consider whether respondent No. 1 is entitled for the benefit of bail or not. It is unfortunate that despite the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners that this Court has not granted the bail, the learned First ASJ, Guna, did not think it fit to seek the clarification from this Court. Instead of doing so, the learned First ASJ has granted the benefit of bail to respondent No. 1. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Meena (supra), has observed in Para 10 as under : -- "10. Thus, Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Sessions regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other Courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the Court. The Court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the Court. The Court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The Court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial. While cancelling bail under Section 439 (2) of the Code, the primary considerations, which weigh with the Court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the Court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers of this Court are much wider, this Court is equally guided by the above principles in the matter of grant or cancellation of bail." 13. In the FIR lodged by complainant Dinesh, who also got injured in the incident, within half an hour of the incident, respondent No. 1-Ranjeet has been named as an assailant, who fired shot at deceased Dileep hitting at his chest resulting into death of Dileep. As per the post-mortem report, injury of chest has been caused by fire-arm object. In the FIR lodged by complainant Dinesh, who also got injured in the incident, within half an hour of the incident, respondent No. 1-Ranjeet has been named as an assailant, who fired shot at deceased Dileep hitting at his chest resulting into death of Dileep. As per the post-mortem report, injury of chest has been caused by fire-arm object. A bullet has also been found in right axilla and death has been caused by fire-arm injury to vital organ of chest. Rampratap Singh @ Babla, Suresh Singh, Dablu Singh, Ramesh Singh, who are said to be the eye-witnesses have in their case diary statements also named respondent No. 1-Ranjeet Singh firing a shot at deceased Dileep. The alleged incident took place in broad day light at 6 p.m. Respondent No. 1 also has criminal antecedents and as many as seven cases are reported to have been registered against him, some of them are of heinous offence like offence under Sections 307, 395 and 397 of IPC at Kotwali Guna. Respondent No. 1 avoided his arrest and remained absconding, therefore, proceeding under Section 82 of Cr.PC has been initiated against him and a reward of Rs. 1,500/- has also been declared by the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone, for his arrest vide order dated 25-11-2012. 14. As noticed above, the learned First ASJ has not at all considered the aforesaid aspects of the case. The learned ASJ has also not considered whether there are chances that respondent No. 1 can flee from justice and tamper the evidence. Instead of considering the material as intended by this Court while issuing direction dated 1-2-13, the learned First ASJ has taken it as bail has been granted to respondent No. 1. Thus, the order giving benefit of bail to respondent No. 1 has been passed ignoring the relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused. The order is wholly against the well recognized principles of granting bail and it is legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice. 15. Annexure P-8 reveals that petitioner No. 1 has lodged a report at police Station that on 7-2-13, Ranjeet Singh has surrounded her, pointed a Katta on her, got her signature on some plain papers by threatening her and also told that if she will not compromise, she will be falsely implicated in case under Section 302 or 307 of IPC. Annexure P-8 reveals that petitioner No. 1 has lodged a report at police Station that on 7-2-13, Ranjeet Singh has surrounded her, pointed a Katta on her, got her signature on some plain papers by threatening her and also told that if she will not compromise, she will be falsely implicated in case under Section 302 or 307 of IPC. On this report, Crime No. 22/13 has been registered at Police Station, Nai Sarai for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 387 of IPC against respondent No. 1. From the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in SLP (Cri) No. 2826/13, it appears that allegation of giving threat to petitioner No. 1 and her minor children has also been made to Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the local police authorities to provide proper protection to the petitioner. 16. Thus, prima facie it also appears that after releasing on bail, respondent No. 2 had given threatening to the widow of deceased Dileep Singh. Thus, he is tampering the prosecution witness. This act of threatening is a violation of conditions of bail imposed by the learned First ASJ while granting bail to respondent No. 2. 17. Learned Counsel for respondent No, 1 placing reliance in the matter of Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 , submits that bail once granted should not be cancelled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter has observed in Para 4 as under: -- "Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." In the instant case, as noticed above, respondent No. 1 after releasing on bail, gave threatening to petitioner No. 1 and her minor children. The learned First ASJ, Guna, while granting the bail has ignored the relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence available against respondent No. 1, possibility of tampering with witnesses and obstructing the course of justice, therefore, the submission of learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 is devoid of any merit. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 also placed reliance in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah and another, (2012) 10 SCC 545 , and submitted that allegation against respondent No. 1 that he is threatening petitioner No. 1 and her children is baseless, and it is not a sufficient reason to cancel the bail granted by the Court. Taking into consideration that petitioner No. 1 has lodged the report regarding threatening given by respondent No. 1 and not only this, petitioner No. 1 also appeared before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the State Authorities to provide proper protection to petitioner No. 1 and her minor children, hence, I do not find any substance in the submission of learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. 18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, considering that learned First ASJ, Guna, while granting bail, misread the order of this Court passed in M.Cr.C. No. 701/13 on 1-2-13, has ignored relevant material and has not considered the well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail and further that there is prima facie material that after releasing on bail, respondent No. 1 gave threatening to the widow of the deceased and her children and obstructed the course of justice, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, it is allowed and the bail granted by learned First ASJ, Guna, vide order dated 6-2-2013 to respondent No. 1 is hereby cancelled. Bail bonds of respondent No. 1 are cancelled. It is directed that respondent No. 1 shall surrender before the learned First ASJ, Guna, and he shall be taken into custody forthwith. In the event of non-compliance of this order, learned First ASJ, Guna, is directed to take proper action in accordance with law.