JUDGMENT : Heard learned advocate Mr.Nirav Padhiyar for the applicant, learned advocate Mr.M.B.Rana for respondent No.2 and learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent No.1 – State. 2. The applicant – complainant has lodged a complaint before Deesa police station, which is registered as I-C.R.No.169 of 2013 u/ss.302, 323, 504 on 6.9.2013 contending that on the date of the incident, when they were going with their cattle near the village, the accused came in a jeep and when he could not get a clear road because of cattle of the complainant, he came out of the jeep with iron tomy and beat the victim, being father of the applicant – complainant on his forehead, which resulted into death of Dharjiji Jagshiji. It is further contended that when victim fell down by first blow, instead of helping the victim, the respondent No.2 – accused has given further two to three blows, which resulted into death of the victim. Thereafter, complainant and his relatives called the ambulance from Deesa Government Dispensary. The name of respondent No.2 – accused is disclosed in the FIR as veterinary Doctor – Dr.Mahendrasinh Chauhan. .3. When police has initiated inquiry and arrested the accused No.2, accused has preferred Criminal Misc.Application No.853 of 2013 before the Sessions Court at Deesa, which was allowed by impugned order dated 11.12.2013, whereby accused was granted regular bail on usual conditions. While deciding such application, the Sessions Court has observed that at the time of the incident, only the complainant was present and that attack by cudgel cannot be considered as an intentional attack to kill a person. While stating so, the Sessions Court has also considered the submission by the accused that, in fact, there was a vehicular accident because of the cattle, which were not handled by the complainant and when complainant and his cattle had dashed with the vehicle, two other persons have came with axe and sticks and thereupon accused apprehended beating by them and, therefore, he also took cudgel in his hand and in such scuffle, this incident occurred. It is further stated that there was no intention to kill the person and, therefore, after the incident, he had immediately went to the L.C.B office for disclosing such offence, where he was arrested. It is further stated that there was no intention to kill the person and, therefore, after the incident, he had immediately went to the L.C.B office for disclosing such offence, where he was arrested. It is further submitted that accused is a Government Doctor and this is his first offence and there is no possibility of his abscondment and he would be available during the trial and that he would not tamper with the evidence. Therefore, bail was requested even by imposing strict conditions which he has agreed to abide. Thus, the sum and substance of the reason for releasing the accused on bail is to the effect that the incident had happened on sudden provocation and it was not a pre-planned murder. 4. Being aggrieved by such order of bail, the applicant herein has contended that the gravity of offence is to be considered. It is further contended that granting of bail to the accused at first place, is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Though the investigation is yet not completed and though chargesheet is not filed and though there is clear evidence that respondent accused has given fatal blow to the victim, bail should not be granted and that though complainant has filed objection before the Sessions Court, same was not considered. It is further contended that even the investigating officer has filed an affidavit before the Sessions Court contending that a Senior Government Officer has committed such a serious offfence and, therefore, he should not be released on bail. It is further contended that iron tomy has been recovered from the accused and that even complainant has received injuries. 5. I have called for the papers of investigation also and perused the same, wherein, there is no detail or evidence available except which is disclosed herein above. The postmortem note shows injuries on the forehead of the victim and the cause of death is shown as brain hemorrhage and complications due to head injury. Therefore, it is clear and certain that deceased expired because of the injuries by the accused. The investigation also confirms that at the relevant time the accused was in that area and was attending some cattle at the place of some witness. Therefore, it is clear and certain that deceased expired because of the injuries by the accused. The investigation also confirms that at the relevant time the accused was in that area and was attending some cattle at the place of some witness. However, it is not disputed by the accused that he had been there at the place and that some scuffle has taken place and on the contrary, he himself has gone to the police after the incident. 6. The only issue is with reference to the attempt by accused to save his skin when he tried to press that the incident was vehicular accident and not assault. 7. However, at present, the chargesheet is filed on 21.11.2013 i.e. after filing the present application in the month of October, 2013 and, therefore, though there is a fatal injury and death of a person, the story of the complainant and investigating papers confirms that the incident was only because of some disturbance and all of a sudden both the sides have attacked each other. The blow of iron tomy to the victim by the accused has resulted into fatal injuries, it cannot be said that it is an intentional assault to murder the victim and, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity. The possibility cannot be ignored that the scuffle resulted because the jeep of the accused had hit some cattle. In the impugned order for releasing the accused on bail by the Sessions Court, I do not find any fault with the impugned order so as to interfere with the order of bail. 8. It is also certain and clear that applicant has claimed to cancel the bail on merits of the impugned order and not because of misdeed or breach of any condition of the bail. Detailed discussion of available evidence would unnecessarily prejudice the pending trial and, therefore, the same is avoided. However, the above observations are for considering this application only and trial Court shall not be influenced by such observation while deciding the case finally. 9. Recently, in Criminal Case Nos.1542 of 2014 and 1766 of 2014 between Ankit Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi and State of NCT of Delhi vs.Gopal Goyal Kanda, Delhi High Court has considered the applications for cancellation of bail in such case of suicide, wherein, facts are more serious than the present case. 9. Recently, in Criminal Case Nos.1542 of 2014 and 1766 of 2014 between Ankit Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi and State of NCT of Delhi vs.Gopal Goyal Kanda, Delhi High Court has considered the applications for cancellation of bail in such case of suicide, wherein, facts are more serious than the present case. Inasmuch as, the deceased has left two suicide notes disclosing the name of the accused responsible for compelling her to end life. The Delhi High Court has after narrating all the relevant factual details taken care of all the judgments cited by both the sides in both the cases, which are as under: 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments in State of Maharashtra vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292 , Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. &Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 398 , State through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi, VII(2005) SLT 160, Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi & Anr., AIR 2001 SC Crl.M.C. No. 1766/2014 & Crl.M.C. No.1542/2014 1444, Gurcharan Singh & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 ,A.V. Papayya Sastry vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 221 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav &Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 528 . 17. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgments in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , H.B. Chaturvedi vs. CBI, 2010 (171) DLT 223 , Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 15 SCC 529, Laloo Prasad alias Laloo Prasad Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand, (2002) 9 SCC 372, Deepak Shubhashchandra Mehta vs. CBI & Anr., (2012) 4 SCC 134 , Dolat Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1SCC 349, Ramcharan vs. State of M.P., (2004) 13 SCC 617 , Nityanand Rai vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2005) 5 SCC 178, Hazari Lal Das vs. State of West Bengal Crl.M.C. No. 1766/2014 & Crl.M.C. No.1542/2014 & Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 652 , Jai Kumar vs. Balhari & Anr., II( 2011) SLT 302, Rahmita vs. State & Ors., I(2012) VIII AD (Delhi)376, Govind Narain Johari vs. State & Anr., 2013 V AD (Delhi)179 and Suresh Kalmadi vs. CBI, 2012 (187) DLT 575 10. The Delhi High Court has quoted relevant paragraph of relevant citations. The Delhi High Court has quoted relevant paragraph of relevant citations. Therefore, repetition of all such paragraphs are not necessary at present but what is concluded by Delhi High Court in Paragraphs No.23, 24 and 28 are reproduced as under:- “23. It is a settled law that bail granted can be cancelled on the ground which has arisen after the bail was granted. It is generally presumed that at the time of hearing of the bail application, the prosecution has raised all possible grounds which could go against the accused in the matter of bail and, therefore, when once bail has been granted to the accused, the prosecution cannot have the bail cancelled on some circumstances which may have existed before the grant of bail. 23. The ground of cancellation of bail and grounds of rejection of bail are two different circumstances and hence the approach of the Court should also be different. At the time of hearing the bail application, the Court looks at the possibilities of the violation of bail conditions and the Court has to be more open and flexible, whereas while hearing the cancellation application, the Court has to be more rigid and it has to examine not only the possibility of violations but whether the actual violation has taken place or not. The Court should be more rigid here and actual proof of violation is required. 28. No doubt, the offence with which respondent/accused is charged is serious in nature, but every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and every accused person has the right to enjoy the bail granted to him unless there is evidence to show the abuse of this right given to him. It is re-emphasized by this Court that at the time of dealing with the question of cancellation of bail of an accused, the only issue which is germane is whether the accused has misused the conditions of bail or tampered with the investigation or the evidence or not.” 11. Under the circumstances, present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged.