Judgment 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of Respondents Nos.2 to 6 by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle vide orders dated 08.11.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.1650/2013 relating to Cr.No.218/2013 of Punganur Police Station. 2. Respondents Nos.2 to 6 are A1 to A5 in the aforesaid crime registered for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC and under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. A1 to A5 filed a petition before the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge granted them anticipatory bail with certain conditions. The petitioner/de facto complainant filed the present petition seeking cancellation of bail contending that the learned Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail did not assign any valid reasons and therefore it is liable to be cancelled. 3. I have heard Sri T.Rajasekhararao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/de facto complainant, Sri Gangainaidu, Senior Counsel, appearing for Respondents Nos.2 to 6 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. 4. In his order, the learned Sessions Judge, after narrating the facts briefly, recorded the contentions urged by both the counsel and held as follows: “The contents of CD disclose examination of eight material witnesses by the investigating agency and also completion of material part of investigation. As the material part of investigation is completed, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A1 to A5 with conditions.” 5. The aforesaid order is challenged on the ground that it does not furnish any reasons. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/de facto complainant relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puran Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338 )wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an order granting bail passed by ignoring material and evidence on record and without giving reasons, would be perverse and contrary to principles of law, such an order would itself provide a ground for moving an application for cancellation of bail and such ground for cancellation is different from the ground that the accused misconducted himself or some new facts call for cancellation. Discussing evidence is totally different from giving reasons for a decision and the Court must record reasons but without discussion of merits and demerits of evidence. 6. Discussing evidence is totally different from giving reasons for a decision and the Court must record reasons but without discussion of merits and demerits of evidence. 6. The learned senior counsel, appearing for Respondents Nos.2 to 6 would submit that the learned Sessions Judge, in fact, gave adequate reasons for granting anticipatory bail to the Respondents Nos.2 to 6 herein, therefore, the bail granted to Respondents Nos.2 to 6 herein is not liable for cancellation. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nityanand Rai v. State of Bihar, (2005(2) ALT (Crl.) 111 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that consideration of an application for grant of bail stands on a different footing than one for cancellation of bail. Grounds for cancellation of bail should be those which arose after grant of bail and should be referable to the conduct of the accused while on bail, such is not a case made out in application for cancellation of bail. 7. In the instant case, obviously, the bail is sought to be cancelled on the ground that no reasons were assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail to the Respondents 2 to 6 herein. This is not a case wherein the reasons were not assigned at all. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, in Puran Rambilas (1 supra) held that arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial Court should be corrected and an order passed granting bail by ignoring the material and evidence available on record and without giving reasons is liable for cancellation. In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge perused the case diary and noticed that 8 material witnesses have been examined by the investigating agency and material part of investigation was over. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge made up his mind to grant anticipatory bail to Respondents Nos.2 to 6 herein with certain conditions. 8. This Court cannot sit over the judgment of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the point as to whether the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are cogent and convincing. If there is some reasoning for granting anticipatory bail, then this Court would not interfere with the said order unless the respondents 2 to 6/A1 to A5 violate any conditions of bail imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. If there is some reasoning for granting anticipatory bail, then this Court would not interfere with the said order unless the respondents 2 to 6/A1 to A5 violate any conditions of bail imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. Absolutely, there is no material placed on record showing that the respondents 2 to 6 herein have violated any conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge therefore cannot be said to be the result of non-application of mind and lacking any reasons. 9. For the reasons stated supra, I am not inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of Respondents Nos.2 to 6 herein by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle vide orders dated 08.11.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.1650/2013 relating to Cr.No.218/2013 of Punganur Police Station. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.