JUDGMENT 1. - Instant application has been filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. praying interalia that the bail granted by this Court to the accused-respondent No. 2, namely Ramgopal be cancelled, as this Court while granting pre-arrest bail has also granted liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation of pre-arrest bail. 2. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench reads as under:- "Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at the bar and upon perusal of the order impugned and the material available on the record, particularly, the report of the FSL after comparison of the disputed document, it is apparent that the comparison which was done was simply based on the comparison of the disputed document and the specimen signatures submitted by the complainant in the civil court. Obviously, when giving the specimen signatures, the concerned person very much has modulate the writings or the signatures as he desires. The substantial facts which goes to add force to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that when the complainant filed a reply in the civil suit, he deliberately signed the reply in English. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a `panchanama' said to have been executed between the parties on 25.4.2008. The said `panchanama' could have been made the basis of comparison of the disputed signatures. Be that as it may, merely due to the report of the hand writing expert, which has been referred to above, the petitioner cannot be deprived pre-arrest bail in this case. However, it has to be directed that since the FSL report was received in pursuance to the directions of the civil court, the Investigating Officer shall endeavour to procure the admitted signatures of the complainant already in existence before the disputed agreement was executed and thereafter the comparison of the signatures shall be done from the FSL. Thereafter, if the report of the FSL is received adverse to the petitioner, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of pre-arest bail granted to the petitioner by this Court. Consequently, this anticipatory bail application is allowed. Thereafter, if the report of the FSL is received adverse to the petitioner, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of pre-arest bail granted to the petitioner by this Court. Consequently, this anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station, Kotwali, Dholpur in F.I.R. No. 565/2008 is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner - Ram Gopal, he shall be released on bail provided he furnished a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner (s) shall make himself/herself/ themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) that the petitioner (s) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner (s) shall not leae India without previous permission of the Court." 3. Admittedly, the report of the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur has come against the accused-respondent No. 1, namely Ramgopal. 4. As to what has been observed in the aforesaid order granting bail is to be noted and highlighted i.e. that the liberty was only granted to prosecution and not to the complainant. 5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting bail was conscious that this liberty only can be granted to the prosecution, as the prosecution can come forward, in case there is a misuse of the concession of bail on the part of the accused, who was granted bail. Even if the case is looked from the another angle and for the sake of assumption, it is held that the complainant is well within his right to approach this Court for cancellation of the bail of the accused, it is to be noted that the grounds for cancellation of bail and grant of bail are entirely different. 6. Even if the case is looked from the another angle and for the sake of assumption, it is held that the complainant is well within his right to approach this Court for cancellation of the bail of the accused, it is to be noted that the grounds for cancellation of bail and grant of bail are entirely different. 6. In the case of Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, reported in A.I.R. 1993 SC 1, where bail was granted to the accused for default of the prosecution for non-submission of the charge-sheet under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., the Apex Court has held that the bail can be cancelled only on the following limited grounds:- "Once the order of release is by fiction of law an order passed under Sections 437(1) or (2) or 439 (1) it follows as a natural consequence that the said order can be cancelled under Sub-section (5) of Section 437 or Sub-section (2) of Section 439 on considerations relevant for cancellation of an order thereunder. As stated in Raghubir Singh's case, [ AIR 1987 SC 149 ] the grounds for cancellation under Sections 437 (5) and 439 (2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Sections 437 (1) or (2) or 439 (1) can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to. We are, therefore, of the view that unless there are strong grounds for cancellation of the bail, the bail once granted cannot be cancelled on mere production of the charge-sheet. We are, therefore, of the view that unless there are strong grounds for cancellation of the bail, the bail once granted cannot be cancelled on mere production of the charge-sheet. The view we are taking is consistent with this Court's view in the case of Bashir & Raghubir (supra) but if any ambiguity has arisen on account of certain observations in Rajnikant's case our endeavour is to clear the same and set the controversy at rest." 7. Similar view was earlier observed by the Apex Court in the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in A.I.R. 1987 149. 8. In the present case, since there is no allegation that the accused-respondent No. 2, namely Ramgopal has misused the concession of bail, no ground is made out to vary the order granting bail. 9. Even if this Court for the sake of arguments lend due credence to the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that in view of the adverse report given by the F.S.L., the petitioner is prima-facie guilty of the alleged offence, this Court is of the view that he is not required for custodial interrogation, as guilt of the petitioner shall be determined during the course of trial. If accused-respondent No. 2, namely Ramgopal is found guilty, he shall be convicted and sentenced for the alleged offence. Therefore, in the midst of trial the bail cannot be cancelled, merely because the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is adverse to accused-respondent No. 2. 10. Hence, there is no merit in the present application and the same is, hereby, dismissed. *******