JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rajesh K. Shah for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 being original accused Nos. 2 to 4 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for respondent No. 1. The petitioner is original complainant. 2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 20th October, 2014 by 5th Additional Sessions Judge Court at Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2106 of 2014, whereby the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had been granted anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under sections 306, 323, 498A and 114 of Indian Penal Code, pursuant to J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara bearing 1st C.R. No. 172 of 2014. 3. Petitioner is father of the victim and he lodged a complaint on 4th January, 2011 contending that his daughter and victim Aaisha had been married to one Maksud Ahmed, son of respondent No. 2 and 3 on 17th February, 2014. It is further disclosed that respondent No. 3 Ruksanaben is real younger sister of the complainant and after the marriage, his daughter was staying with her husband with respondents in joint family at Vadodara and that his brother-in-law who is also father-in-law of his daughter, i.e. respondent No. 2, is serving as Engineer in PWD and that marriage was accorded after discussion between the family members and with the willingness of all of them. However, after the marriage in June, 2014 when victim came to the house of complainant (her father), it is revealed that she was unhappy at her matrimonial house, since respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were misbehaving and beating her, and her husband Mauksud, instead of helping her supported the respondents. All of them are accused. They were blaming and torturing the victim by saying that they have committed mistake in selecting her as wife of their son, since they were under impression that if they select a girl from village she would do the labourer work of the house but she is not good selection again for the son, and that they have engaged a maid servant. Thereby there were differences and disturbance in her marriage life and when complainant has tried to resolve it, respondent No. 2 has got annoyed and stated that he wants wife for his son who could do household work and not a daughter. Thereby there were differences and disturbance in her marriage life and when complainant has tried to resolve it, respondent No. 2 has got annoyed and stated that he wants wife for his son who could do household work and not a daughter. Thereafter in August, 2014 when complainant had been to Vadodara to call his daughter, he had occasion to meet the respondent No. 2. When it was learnt that they were torturing and harassing the victim and when complainant has met them, they quarreled with the complainant and also threatened that do not care for his daughter, otherwise they will see that his daughter does not, thereby complainant was restrained from meeting his own daughter. The victim had conveyed to take her back to paternal house apprehending that she may be killed by the respondents. Thereafter, in October, 2014, complainant has received a message from his brothers to take his daughter back and thereupon he conveyed to the respondent No. 2 requesting to take his daughter back, but he had not sent her, stating that the expenditure of marriage has yet not been recovered and denied to allow the victim to go to the complainant's house. After such incident on 10th October, 2014, complainant has received another call disclosing that his daughter locked herself in the room and therefore they rushed to Vadodara. Where they found that their daughter was dead, at that time respondent No. 3 disclosed to them that she hanged herself onto a fan. Thereupon, police was informed and postmortem was performed, complainant has lodged complaint aforesaid. 4. Pending such complaint, accused have prayed for anticipatory bail which was granted as aforesaid. Hence, petitioner-complainant has challenged the legality of such order. 5. If we peruse the impugned judgment of granting anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, it becomes clear that the Sessions Court had considered all relevant fact and when the marriage span is only of eight months, though the offence is of suicide, it is serious offence when there are allegations regarding ill-treatment by the in-laws. It seems that even though there is an offence and specific allegations against respondent Nos. 2 to 4, it becomes clear that the Sessions Court had considered all relevant fact and when the marriage span is only of eight months, though the offence is of suicide, it is serious offence when there are allegations regarding ill-treatment by the in-laws. It seems that even though there is an offence and specific allegations against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in complaint and police papers, the trial court has extended the benefit of anticipatory bail solely on the ground that respondent No. 3 and 4 are women, contending that if they are released on anticipatory bail, there would not be any disturbance in police investigation and therefore he exercised discretion by granting anticipatory bail. The Sessions Court has with reference to decision cited by the complainant before it, avoided to follow it contending that he does not confirm that anticipatory bail should not be granted. It is also considered by the Sessions Court that complainant has added all family members without valid reasons and considered that they cooperated in investigation and that there is no antecedent of any other criminal activities of them. 6. Learned advocate for the respondents has submitted as under:-- "(i) That the deceased got married to the son of respondent No. 2 and 3 after 2-1/2 years after engagement. The couple was fully aware about nature of family members of each other. (ii) That the application of husband for bail is rejected by the trial court and husband is in jail till today. (iii) The reference of another complaint being FIR 1/2011 is not relevant or material to consider the background of the respondents as having criminal antecedent, since the FIR was filed after the divorce, and there are no specific allegation in such complaint against the present respondent No. 2, and, that during investigation, police could not find out any such evidence. (iv) that the respondents have not committed any breach of bail conditions. (v) that while granting the anticipatory bail, court has considered all the evidence, affidavit of prosecution and reply of the complainant and after perusing the same, granted bail to the respondents. (vi) that the matrimonial family of deceased was happy as the deceased was pregnant. That on 08.10.2014 i.e.; just before three days of incident, the respondents and deceased visited Dr. (vi) that the matrimonial family of deceased was happy as the deceased was pregnant. That on 08.10.2014 i.e.; just before three days of incident, the respondents and deceased visited Dr. Atul Patel (MD), R.C. Dutt Road, Vadodara for routine check up, doctor had reported five weeks five days pregnancy. (vii) That while granting the bail court has considered the span of marriage life (8 months) as submitted by the all parties even the respondent i.e. original applicants has also submitted that the marriage life of the deceased is 7-8 months. It is submitted that while rejecting the application of husband on very same day the Sessions Court has corrected the word "8 years" and written "8 months". Therefore, it is not correct to say that the court has considered span of marriage life as 8 years while granting bail. (viii) that the revision u/s. 397(2) itself is not maintainable as the bail order is interlocutory order." 7. Learned Advocate for the respondent also relied upon following citations for maintainability of revision:-- "(i) V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. Reported in AIR 1980 SC 962 (ii) Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparel Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2001)7 SCC 401 . (iii) Makwana Sambhubhai Chothabhai v. State of Gujarat reported in (1993)1 GLH 331 " 8. Learned Advocate for the respondent also relied upon following citations for cancellation of bail:-- "(i) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014)2 G.L.H. 547. (ii) Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1 (iii) Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana, reported in (1995)1 SCC 349 (iv) Nityanand Rai v. State of Bihar & Anrs. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2239 (v) Savitri Agarwal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3137 (vi) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2011(1)GLH 1" 9. The law of bail is well settled. It is certainly said that nobody should be kept behind bar for no valid reason. 10. Following cited cases are relevant to be recollected here, which also confirm that bail cannot be cancelled in such cases. reported in 2011(1)GLH 1" 9. The law of bail is well settled. It is certainly said that nobody should be kept behind bar for no valid reason. 10. Following cited cases are relevant to be recollected here, which also confirm that bail cannot be cancelled in such cases. "(1) Bhuvaneshwar Yadav v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2009 SC 1452 wherein Honourable Apex Court has confirmed that it is necessary for the Courts dealing with the application for bail to consider amongst all other circumstances, following circumstances before granting bail. 1. The nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, 2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering the evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant, 3. Prima-facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. (2) Emmanuel Eric v. State of Hariyana reported in (20102) 12 SCC 376. (3) Tarakant Singh v. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 767 (4) Devendra Kumar v. State of Hariyana reported in (2010) 6 SCC 753 " 11. In the present case also, there is no allegation regarding misuse of liberty. Thereby, the cancellation of bail is prayed on merits of the order of bail. However, bail cannot be cancelled only because somebody files an application for cancellation of bail. 12. In Criminal Case Nos. 1542 of 2014 and 1766 of 2014 between Ankit Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi and State of NCT of Delhi v. 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 her 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: "12(i) Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon judgments in State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292 , Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 398 , State through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, VII(2005) SLT 160, Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 1444 , Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 , A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 221 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 528 . 12. (ii) Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgments in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , H.B. Chaturvedi v. CBI, 2010 (171) DLT 223 , Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 15 SCC 529, Laloo Prasad alias Laloo Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, (2002) 9 SCC 372, Deepak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. CBI & Anr. (2012) 4 SCC 134 , Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 , Ramcharan v. State of M.P., (2004) 13 SCC 617 , Nityanand Rai v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2005) 5 SCC 178, Hazari Lal Das v. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 652 , Jai Kumar v. Balhari & Anr., II(2011) SLT 302, Rahmita v. State & Ors., I(2012) VIII AD (Delhi)376, Govind Narain Johari v. State & Anr., 2013 V AD (Delhi)179 and Suresh Kalmadi v. CBI, 2012 (187) DLT 575 ." 13. The Delhi High Court has quoted relevant paragraphs of relevant citations. Therefore, repetition of all such paragraphs are not necessary at present but what is concluded by Delhi High Court in Paragraph Nos. 23, 24 and 28 are reproduced as under: "(i) 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. (ii) 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. (ii) 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 of bail 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. (iii) 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 reemphasized 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." 14. Moreover, when investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed, now after the decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2011(1) SCC 694 , there is no reason to cancel the bail.(2011)1 GLH 11. 15. However, in the present case, petitioner-complainant has come forward with FSL report, certified copy of which is available to them only after filing of this revision. It is true that perusal of such FSL report gives an impression that there are some marks of beating on the dead-body of the victim. If such marks are proved as marks of beating then, it would certainly curtails the right of getting bail and thereby there may be a serious consideration pending trial. However, when such evidence was not available before the trial court, at the relevant time, it cannot be said that the trial court has committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, impugned judgment cannot be set aside and modified in absence of proper evidence on record at such stage, considering the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Agarwal & Ors. Therefore, impugned judgment cannot be set aside and modified in absence of proper evidence on record at such stage, considering the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Agarwal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3137 (supra), wherein Apex Court has held that bail cannot be cancelled only because other view was possible. It seems that Reference to the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) is also irrelevant since the Apex Court has already confirmed that arrest of all family members in such cases is not necessary. 16. However, considering the evidence, it can be said that if there is proper evidence on record of the trial court, it would be proper for the trial court to cancel the bail at the relevant time after recording material evidence and it would be open for the complainant to move proper application for such cancellation on similar ground. But at present, there is no reason to cancel the bail, as prayed for. 17. In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussion, the revision application is dismissed but with liberty to the complainant to initiate appropriate proceedings for cancellation of bail in that case, the trial court has to decide it in accordance with law, and relying upon actual evidence adduced on record. 18. In view of above facts and circumstances, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.