Order : 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. This miscellaneous petition has been preferred to quash and set aside the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the bail granted in favour of the accused petitioner vide order dated 13.05.2017 was cancelled. 3. Counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the judgment in Abdul Basit @ Raju and others Etc. versus Md. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another reported in 2015 All SCR 651 submits that the same Court cannot cancel the bail granted in favour of the accused by reviewing the earlier order. He further submits that the bail was granted by the concerned Court on 13.05.2017 after examination-in-chief of the victim Rajpal was recorded during trial wherein he denied the fact of opening fire by Rajpal upon him. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the bail order was obtained by accused petitioner on misrepresentation and concealment of the facts. In such situation the Court below was justified to cancel the bail order passed on the basis of concealment and misrepresentation of the facts. 5. On considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides, the fact reveals in the matter that charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons inter-alia petitioner Rajpal for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 363, 384, 307 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. First bail application moved by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.02.2017, second bail application was also rejected on 09.03.2017 and then the third bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.05.2017 by Coordinate Bench of this Court while giving liberty to the accused to file subsequent bail application after recording the statement of the victim. It also reveals that accused petitioner preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which came to be dismissed on 26.04.2017 observing that “we permit the petitioner to move the High Court after three months and request the High Court to dispose of the same at the earliest keeping in view the period of custody.” 6. It appears that thereafter a compromise came to be filed between the parties on 29.05.2017 on the basis of which examination-in-chief of Rajpal was recorded on 29.05.2017. It appears that thereafter a compromise came to be filed between the parties on 29.05.2017 on the basis of which examination-in-chief of Rajpal was recorded on 29.05.2017. Just thereafter and prior to the expirty of three months from the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the bail application was moved on behalf of the petitioner Rajpal which was allowed vide order dated 30.05.2017, mainly based on the facts deposed by victim Vishnu in his examination-in-chief. Later on the cross-examination was conducted on 17.08.2017 wherein the facts stated earlier by Rajpal were controverted by him and role of Rajpal in opening fire upon him was mentioned. Thereafter, an application for cancellation of bail came to be filed on 09.08.2017 which was allowed vide order dated 04.09.2017. 7. On perusal of the order dated 04.09.2017 it comes out that the Court has mentioned therein that the concealment has been made on behalf of the accused petitioner Rajpal regarding the fact of cancellation of his bail application twice by the High Court and also regarding the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP preferred by him to move the bail application after three months. It has further been stated that Rajpal is threatening the victim and his family members for the dire consequences. 8. In the facts mentioned above, it clearly transpires from the perusal of the order dated 04.09.2017 that Additional District & Sessions Judge No.13 order to cancel the bail application on manifold grounds. Firstly suppression of facts by the petitioner that his bail applications were rejected twice by this Court and once by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Secondly bail application was again moved by the petitioner prior to the period of three months from the order of Supreme Court rejecting the SLP preferred by him. Thirdly accused Rajpal and his family members were threatening the complainant for the dire consequences. The grounds on which the cancellation order was passed by the Court appears to be justified. Moreover, it has been held in Abdul Basit’s case (supra) that attempt to tamper with the evidence or witnesses can be valid ground for cancellation of bail. This was also an additional factor which was considered by the Court below while rejecting the bail. 9. Moreover, it has been held in Abdul Basit’s case (supra) that attempt to tamper with the evidence or witnesses can be valid ground for cancellation of bail. This was also an additional factor which was considered by the Court below while rejecting the bail. 9. To exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court is under obligation to ensure that it can be exercised only to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to any order passed under this code. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, neither of these circumstances appears to exist in the case in hand. On the contrary, it appears that the petitioner has not come with clean hands while filing his bail application and his conduct appears to be contrary to the circumstances in which inherent powers can be exercised by this Court. 10. Therefore, I do not find any reason to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to grant indulgence in favour of the accused petitioner. 11. In the facts mentioned above accordingly the miscellaneous petition is dismissed.