ORDER : C.L. SONI, J. The present application is filed under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the code) seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent nos. 1 and 2 by this Court under Section 438 of the Code vide order dated 29.12.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application no. 27719 of 2016. 2. The anticipatory bail was granted in connection with First Information Report (FIR) being C.R No.-I-153/16 lodged with B-Division City Police Station, Dist: Junagadh for the offenses punishable under Section 406 and 114 of Indian Penal Code (‘the IPC’). The gist of the allegations in the FIR is that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 with co-accused removed about 5 machines and movable properties like Air-conditions, Computers etc. worth Rs. 75,00,000/- of partnership firm-M/s. Pacific Digital Printers without informing and with intention not to give share in the partnership to the applicant and thereby they committed breach of trust with the applicant. 3. As observed in the order granting anticipatory bail, the Court considered the nature of allegations and restoration of four machines by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at the place of partnership firm to exercise discretion in favor of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, one of the conditions imposed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail was that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall not misuse their liberty. 4. This application for cancellation of bail is filed on the ground that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have misused their liberty by removing machines from the partnership firm and the condition imposed by this Court is not respected. 5. Learned senior advocate Mr. Desai appearing with learned advocate Mr. Zalak B. Pipaliya for the applicant submitted that learned Session Judge had refused bail to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on prima facie finding that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directly involved in the offence of criminal breach of trust by removing machines and other properties of the firm in association with antisocial elements however, this Court exercised discretion under Section 438 of the Code in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 mainly on consideration that pending the application before this Court the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had restored four machines at the place of the partnership firm. Mr. Desai submitted that when this Court imposed condition that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 mainly on consideration that pending the application before this Court the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had restored four machines at the place of the partnership firm. Mr. Desai submitted that when this Court imposed condition that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall not misuse their liberty, it was in the context that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall not again indulge in similar offence of removing the machines of the partnership firm. Mr. Desai submitted that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 who are not concerned with partnership firm have again removed machines from the partnership firm and thereby, committed breach of condition imposed by this Court. Mr. Desai submitted that misuse of liberty by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is apparent from their affidavit and the documents annexed by them and since main consideration for grant of anticipatory bail to them was restoration of machines by them, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not deserve continuance of liberty granted to them by this Court, and therefore bail granted to them is required to be canceled under Section 439(2) of the Code. 6. Learned senior advocate Mr. Tolia appearing with the learned advocate Mr. Oza for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are in fact not outsider to the firm. The respondent No. 1 is husband of Ramaben/Rachnaben who is one of the partners in the partnership firm and whose share is 30% in the partnership firm. The respondent No. 2 is brother of the Ramaben and Manager of the firm. Mr. Tolia submitted that the firm has taken loan from the bank and since it is facing financial difficulty, the respondent No. 1 has been lending money to it to in turn pay installments to the bank. Mr. Tolia submitted that the respondent No. 1 continued to provide financial help to the firm even after anticipatory bail was granted to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He submitted that for the benefit of the firm the partners including the applicant decided to allow the respondent No. 1 to use the machines and with effect from 08.05.2017, the machines were treated to be given on rent to the firm of respondent No. 1 i.e. M/s. Plezer Color Lab Junagadh, for which the respondent No. 1 has been continuously paying an amount of Rs. 48,000/- per month to the firm. Mr. Tolia submitted that after 08.05.2017, for about more than two months, the applicant has not taken any objection against the respondent No. 1 using the machines in view of the payment of rent continuously made by the respondent No. 1 to the firm. Mr. Tolia submitted that since machines were allowed to be used by the partners, it could not be said that the respondent No. 1 committed breach of condition imposed by this Court or misused the liberty granted to him. Mr. Tolia submitted that the respondent No. 2 is the Manager of the firm who on being asked by the partners handed over the keys to open the premises of the firm for removal of the machines and has not committed the breach of condition imposed by this Court. Mr. Tolia submitted that since the removal of machines by respondent No. 1 was with no intention to commit breach of the condition imposed by this Court, the respondent No. 1 is agreeable to restore the machines to the firm but is also ready to file undertaking to the effect that the amount paid by him per month towards rent after 08.05.2017 which comes to Rs. 2,88,000/- will not be considered as a liability of the firm, and will not claim back such amount from the firm and that so long as he is allowed to use the machines, he shall continue to pay the same amount of rent i.e. Rs. 48,000/- per month to the firm which could be utilized by the firm for making payment of installment to the bank towards the liability of bank loan. Taking the Court to Affidavit-in-Reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the document of declaration/undertaking annexed with the affidavit of respondent No. 2, Mr. Tolia submitted that to settle the score of business dispute, the applicant has now come with present application though he has not taken any objection for giving the machinery to the respondent No. 1 on rent by the firm. He thus urged not to cancel the bail granted to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 7. Learned senior advocate Mr. Desai in reply submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have come with false story as regards use of machines on rent with the consent of the partners of firm. Mr. He thus urged not to cancel the bail granted to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 7. Learned senior advocate Mr. Desai in reply submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have come with false story as regards use of machines on rent with the consent of the partners of firm. Mr. Desai submitted that except the declaration prepared in the name of one partner, i.e. Naranbhai Khimani, there is nothing to show that the respondent No. 1 is given machines on rent. He submitted that the declaration/undertaking annexed with affidavit of respondent No. 2 is part of the game plane to use the same if the breach of condition is complained by the applicant after removal of machines by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Desai submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 themselves removed the machines with the help of antisocial elements of Junagadh and on account of constant threat from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the applicant had to move Junagadh town and started living in Vadodara City. Mr. Desai submitted that when the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are found to have again removed the machines after they restored the same pending their anticipatory bail application and invited condition not to misuse their liberty, it is clear case of committing breach of condition imposed by this Court by them. Mr. Desai thus urged that irrespective of the willingness to restore the machines and to file undertaking not to claim back the amount alleged to have been given to respondent firm, the Court may cancel the bail granted to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as they having misused their liberty, do not deserve to continue to enjoy the liberty. 8. No learned Additional Public Prosecutor from the office of learned Public Prosecutor is present. 9. The Court having heard learned advocates finds from the copy of the partnership deed which was annexed with the application for anticipatory bail that the wife of respondent No. 1 has 30% share and the applicant has also 30% share in profit and loss of the partnership business. This Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on consideration of the allegations in the FIR and of restoration of the machines to the firm by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pending the application for anticipatory bail. This Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on consideration of the allegations in the FIR and of restoration of the machines to the firm by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pending the application for anticipatory bail. The applicant has complained breach of the condition on the ground that main consideration for grant of anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was restoration of machines by them and therefore, removal of machines again by them could be said to be misuse of liberty granted to them. Learned advocate Mr. Tolia began his argument by saying that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were immediately agreeable to restore the machines as with no intention to commit breach of condition imposed by this Court, the machines were taken by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, however, learned senior advocate Mr. Desai submitted that once having committed breach of condition imposed by this Court, the impact of the breach of condition imposed by this Court or misuse of the liberty granted to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would not be diluted by just showing willingness to restore the machines. However, the consideration would not rest here. The question is whether in facts of the case, this Court should exercise its powers under Section 439(2) of the code to cancel the bail granted to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Considerations for grant of bail and for cancellation of bail are different as ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in different decisions. If the Court finds that the accused after granted bail has misused his liberty, it can cancel bail but it can also consider the circumstances pointed out for which it may refuse to cancel the bail. 10. In the present case, though respondent nos. 1 and 2 are not the partners in the firm, however, they could not be said to have no concern for the partnership firm in as much as the wife of respondent No. 1 and sister of respondent No. 2 who is also from the family of the other partners except the applicant has 30% share in partnership. The respondent No. 1 has declared before this Court that the amount of Rs. The respondent No. 1 has declared before this Court that the amount of Rs. 48,000/- regularly paid by him per month after 08.05.2017 could be considered towards rent for use of the machines which he will never claim back from the firm and has also agreed to continue to give such fixed amount regularly to the firm so long as he is allowed to use the machines of the firm. Mr. Desai though argued that the declaration/undertaking stating that all the partners consented for use of the machines by the respondent No. 1 on rent is false declaration, however, it is not for this Court to decide the issue whether the machines removed and being used by the respondent No. 1 are given on rent or not. The willingness on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 especially respondent No. 1, to restore the machines and not to claim back the amount given by him to the firm after 08.05.2017 and to go on paying Rs. 48,000/- per month towards the rent so long as he is allowed to use the machines would lead the Court to record that there appears to be no willful misuse of the liberty and breach of condition by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore the application does not call for exercise of powers under Section 439(2) of the Code. However, learned advocate Mr. Tolia since declared before the Court that respondent No. 1 is agreeable to file undertaking not to claim the amount given to the firm, i.e Rs. 2,88,000/-, and to go on paying Rs. 48,000/- per month by way of rent to the firm till he is allowed to use the machines, the respondent No. 1 could be put to such condition of filing undertaking before this Court. 11. In view of the above, the application is rejected. However, the respondent No. 1 shall file undertaking before this Court stating clearly that he shall not claim back the amount given by him to the firm after 08.05.2017, i.e. Rs. 2,88,000/-, and shall go on paying Rs. 48,000/- per month to the firm as rent for use of machines till he is allowed to use the machines. It is clarified that neither by such undertaking of respondent No. 1 nor by the present order, any right of the applicant concerning the partnership business including for the machines is affected. 2,88,000/-, and shall go on paying Rs. 48,000/- per month to the firm as rent for use of machines till he is allowed to use the machines. It is clarified that neither by such undertaking of respondent No. 1 nor by the present order, any right of the applicant concerning the partnership business including for the machines is affected. It is always open to the applicant to take appropriate action in connection with the partnership business as permissible in law.