ORDER : The petitioner was granted with anticipatory bail by the trial Court in connection with Crime No.5/2015 vide order dated 29.02.2016 in Crl. Mis. No.732/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 409 and 420 r/w. Section 120B of IPC, Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 21 and 23 r/w. Section 4(1) and 4(1)(a) of the MMDR Act, 1957, with certain conditions 2. The second condition imposed by the trial Court is to the following effect: “The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every 1st and 3rd Monday of every month till the filing of final report and also whenever directed by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation.” 3. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the petitioner has violated Condition No.2. On hearing both the parties, the trial Court has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner earlier. 4. As could be seen from the order passed by the trial Court in Crl. Mis. No.732/2016, while granting bail the Court has considered the case in detail on merits and found that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions and accordingly, the Court granted bail imposing certain conditions. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that many number of cases have been registered against the petitioner, therefore, on one or two occasions he has not appeared before the Investigating Officer, because he was apprehending his arrest in connection with some other case, therefore, he wanted to take bail in those cases also. The trial Court has not considered whether it is a valid reason for condoning the attitude of the petitioner in not attending the Investigating Officer, as per the condition imposed. The trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to mend his conduct and comply with the directions issued by the Court, instead when substantially the bail order has already been passed granting bail on merits of the case, it may not be proper on the part of the trial Court to cancel the bail on the ground that one of the conditions has been violated. An opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to comply with the direction. An opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to comply with the direction. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 22.04.2016 passed by the trial Court earlier in Crl. Misc. No.732/2016 is hereby set aside. The order dated 29.02.2016 passed on the application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. in the said case by the trial Court is restored with a direction that the petitioner shall hereinafter comply with the conditions imposed by the trial Court without fail, strictly, or he can seek for relaxation of that condition before the trial Court on any genuine reasons.