JUDGMENT : Cr.M.P No. 1095 of 2012 has been preferred by the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Laxmi Singh and Rohit Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively) vide order dated 01.07.2008 passed in A.B.A No. 1147 of 2008, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 129 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 1187 of 2008, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 2. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the Bank is that co-accused Ramesh Kumar Singh was also granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 01.07.2008 passed in A.B.A. No. 1178 of 2008 after having taken into consideration the submission made on his behalf that the matter had been settled between the parties. However, subsequently the said anticipatory bail granted to Ramesh Kumar Singh was cancelled vide order dated 08.07.2011 (modified on 06.02.2012) passed in Cr.M.P No. 1285 of 2009 observing that Ramesh Kumar Singh, after passing of the order neither deposited any amount nor filed another copy of sale deed as collateral security and he did not honour his commitment made before the court to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs to the Bank in order to get the matter of settlement initiated. The said order of cancellation has attained finality by the dismissal of S.L.P (Crl.) No. 6219 of 2011 preferred by Ramesh Kumar Singh vide order dated 02.09.2011. 3. Cr.M.P No. 250 of 2012 has been preferred by Ramesh Kumar Singh for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, whereby the learned court took cognizance of the offences under sections 468, 467, 471, 420, 120B I.P.C. in connection with Bistupur P.S Case No. 129 of 2008, corresponding to G.R No. 1187 of 2008 contending that though as per the said FIR the allegation is that sale deed no. 227 has been tampered and mutation slip no. 410/II/81-82 and Rent Receipt No. 807784 dated 16.10.2004 has not been issued from the office of the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, yet during the entire investigation, no evidence has been collected showing commission of any such offence whatsoever. 227 has been tampered and mutation slip no. 410/II/81-82 and Rent Receipt No. 807784 dated 16.10.2004 has not been issued from the office of the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, yet during the entire investigation, no evidence has been collected showing commission of any such offence whatsoever. It has further been contended that the Bank has initiated criminal prosecution only to pressurize the petitioner and other accused persons for payment of alleged dues of the Bank which is primarily a civil dispute and no criminal culpability is made out against him. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Bistupur P.S Case No. 129 of 2008 was registered on the basis of the written report of the Bank through its Chief Manager of Jamshedpur Main Branch alleging that a cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 1 Crore was given by the aforesaid Branch of the Bank in favour of M/s Laxmi Ore Minerals (P) Ltd. on 28.09.2005, wherein Ramesh Kumar Singh, Laxmi Singh and Rohit Kumar Singh were the Directors. Raj Kumar Shaw, Ganesh Shaw and Ajit Kumar stood as guarantors and mortgaged their property in favour of the Bank. The borrower and guarantors did not pay the outstanding dues and as such, the said account was classified as non-performing asset and the authorized officer proceeded to take possession of the property mortgaged by Raj Kumar Shaw vide deed no. 227. However, the Bank could not succeed in obtaining possession of the same due to the intervention of the local inhabitants on the ground that the land does not belong to Raj Kumar Shaw and during inquiry, it was found that the sale deed no. 227 dated 16.10.1981 produced to the Bank was a tampered one and the mutation slip and rent receipt relating to the said deed were also not issued from the Circle Office, Jamshedpur. 5. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the Bank for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 of Cr.M.P. No. 1095 of 2012 is concerned, it appears from the record that they were granted Anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.07.2008 passed in A.B.A No. 1147 of 2008 by taking into consideration the submission made on their behalf that the matter had already been settled with the Bank. 2 and 3 of Cr.M.P. No. 1095 of 2012 is concerned, it appears from the record that they were granted Anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.07.2008 passed in A.B.A No. 1147 of 2008 by taking into consideration the submission made on their behalf that the matter had already been settled with the Bank. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow: “Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the case of the prosecution, cash credit facility to the extent of Rs. 1 crore was extended to M/s Laxmi Ore Minerals (P) Ltd. on deposit of two sale deeds as collateral security by three guarantors creating equitable mortgage of the properties covered under the said deeds but the borrower never repaid the amount of loan and moreover it was detected that some manipulation has been made in one of the sale deeds and, therefore, the case was lodged against those three guarantors as well as against these petitioners, who happen to be the Directors of the company, though the petitioners can never be said to have done anything concerning act of manipulation, if any, with respect of sale deeds rather if anyone can be held responsible, then it could be the guarantors and that apart, the Bank has now settled the dispute by having negotiation with these petitioners whereby they have given schedule of the payment by which time repayment is to be made by the petitioners and pursuant to that agreement, petitioners after lodgment of the case, have deposited Rs. 2,50,000/- and will be going on depositing the amount as per the agreement arrived at in between the parties and the petitioners are even prepared to give another collateral security in lieu of earlier one where some manipulation is said to have been found in one of the sale deeds.” 6. Another accused namely, Ramesh Kumar Singh (the petitioner of Cr.M.P No. 250 of 2012) was granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.07.2008, however, the same was cancelled vide order dated 08.07.2011 (subsequently modified on 06.02.2012) passed in Cr.M.P No. 1285 of 2009. The S.L.P (Crl.) No. 6219 of 2011 preferred by Ramesh Kumar Singh challenging the order of cancellation of anticipatory bail was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.09.2011. 7. The S.L.P (Crl.) No. 6219 of 2011 preferred by Ramesh Kumar Singh challenging the order of cancellation of anticipatory bail was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.09.2011. 7. In the case of “Union Bank of India Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.” (Cr.M.P No. 1285 of 2009), it has been held as follows: “Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the order under which petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, it does appear that statement was made that a settlement has arrived at in between the petitioner and the Bank whereby schedule of payment has been given and in terms of the settlement, a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs has been deposited and that the petitioner will go on depositing the money and at the same time, statement was made that another sale deed in place of sale deed which was found to be tampered would be deposited as collateral security and taking into account the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail but from the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, it does appear that the petitioner after passing of the order never deposited any amount nor the petitioner did file original copy of the sale deed as collateral security. That apart, the petitioner also did not honour his commitment made before this Court during hearing of this application that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs in order to get the matter of settlement initiated.” 8. Subsequently, the aforesaid order was modified vide order dated 02.02.2012 and the word “petitioner” as mentioned in the last paragraph was directed to be read as “opposite party no. 2”- Ramesh Kumar Singh. 9. In Cr.M.P. No. 1095 of 2012 also, the specific stand of the Bank is that the anticipatory bail was granted to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on their false statement that the matter had already been settled, rather at no point of time the dispute was settled by the Bank with the accused persons. 9. In Cr.M.P. No. 1095 of 2012 also, the specific stand of the Bank is that the anticipatory bail was granted to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on their false statement that the matter had already been settled, rather at no point of time the dispute was settled by the Bank with the accused persons. It has further been stated that they had made wrong statements in para 6 and 23 of the anticipatory bail application that the Bank had no grievance against them and the account of M/s Laxmi Ore Minerals (P) Ltd. was being maintained to the satisfaction of the Bank, rather the true fact is that the borrower failed to maintain the financial discipline and as a consequence thereof its account was categorized as non-performing asset in March, 2007 itself. 10. The learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 counters the argument made on behalf of the Bank by putting reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “Abdul Basit @ Raju & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary & Anr.” reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 and submits that the order of bail earlier granted by this Court cannot be reviewed. 11. I have perused the aforesaid judgment, wherein the bail was granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C on default in completion of investigation within the stipulated period. Subsequently, the application for cancellation of bail was filed on behalf of the prosecution on the ground that the direction of Sessions Judge, Karimganj to the CID to conduct further investigation of the case under section 178(8) of the Code did not tantamount to re-investigation or fresh investigation, hence it did not render the chargesheet submitted by the police infructuous and therefore would not entitle the accused to avail default bail. The High Court, thereafter, cancelled the bail. The impugned order of cancellation of bail was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Their Lordships while setting aside the judgment of the High Court held that although the court granting bail can cancel the same on the ground of misconduct of the accused or new adverse facts having surfaced after the grant of bail, however in view of express bar contained in section 362 CrPC, it cannot review its order as to the grant of bail on ground of it being unjustified, illegal or perverse. It has further been held that an order for release on bail under Section 167(2) proviso (a) to the Cr.P.C. is not an order on merit, but an order-on-default of the prosecuting agency. Such an order can be nullified for special reasons after the default is cured. The accused cannot, therefore, claim any special right to remain on bail. If the investigation reveals that the accused has committed a serious offence and the chargesheet is filed, the bail granted under Section 167(2) proviso (a) to the Cr.P.C. can be cancelled on an application by the prosecuting agency. 12. In the case of “Abdul Basit” (supra), it has been held as under: “13. It is trite that Section 167(2) creates a deeming fiction whereby the release of a person is equated to his release under Chapter XXXIII of the Code. However, an order for release on bail under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) is not an order on merits but an order-on-default of the prosecuting agency. Such an order could be nullified for special reasons after the defect/default has been cured. The accused cannot, therefore, claim any special right to remain on bail. If the investigation reveals that the accused has committed a serious offence and charge-sheet is filed, the bail granted under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) could be cancelled on an application by the prosecuting agency. 14. Under Chapter XXXIII, Section 439(1) empowers the High Court as well as the Court of Session to direct any accused person to be released on bail. Section 439(2) empowers the High Court to direct any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII of the Code be arrested and committed to custody i.e. the power to cancel the bail granted to an accused person. Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. Where bail has been granted under the proviso to Section 167(2) for the default of the prosecution in not completing the investigation in sixty days after the defect is cured by the filing of a charge-sheet, the prosecution may seek to have the bail cancelled on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest him and commit him to custody. However, in the last mentioned case, one would expect very strong grounds indeed. (Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar [ (1986) 4 SCC 481 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 511 : 1987 Cri LJ 157].)” 13. In the aforesaid judgment, it has specifically been held that Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to cancel the bail earlier granted, however, there must be sufficient grounds for cancelling the bail order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given some illustrations where the order of cancellation of bail earlier granted may be cancelled but at the same time, it has also been held that such illustrations are not exhaustive. 14. Coming back to the present case, the anticipatory bail was granted to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 of Cr.M.P. No. 1095 of 2012 on submission that the matter had been settled with the Bank and after lodging of the case they have deposited Rs. 2,50,000/- and would continue to deposit the amount as per agreement and they were ready to give another collateral security in lieu of earlier one where some manipulation was said to have been found in one of the sale deeds. The anticipatory bail granted to co-accused Ramesh Kumar Singh on the said ground has been cancelled by a Bench of this Court and the said order has been confirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Under such circumstance, I find that it is a fit case to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as there is no reason to give different treatment to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 than that of co-accused Ramesh Kumar Singh. 15. Under such circumstance, I find that it is a fit case to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as there is no reason to give different treatment to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 than that of co-accused Ramesh Kumar Singh. 15. So far the prayer made by Ramesh Kumar Singh in Cr.M.P. No. 250 of 2012 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order of cognizance dated 14.12.2011 in connection with Bistupur P.S Case No. 129 of 2008, corresponding to G.R No. 1187 of 2008) under sections 468, 467, 471, 420, 120B I.P.C., the grounds raised therein appears to be factual in nature which cannot be determined in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the earlier petition being Cr.M.P No. 273 of 2012 filed by the accused namely, Laxmi Singh @ Laxmi Devi and Rohit Kumar Singh @ Rohit Kumar with similar prayer has already been dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2012 having found that the allegations levelled against the petitioners sufficiently disclose the offence as alleged. While dismissing the said criminal miscellaneous petition, the said petitioners were given liberty to raise all the points before the court below at the appropriate stage. The petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 250 of 2012 (Ramesh Kumar Singh) stands on similar footing. 16. Under the aforesaid circumstance, Cr.M.P No. 1095 of 2012 filed by the Union Bank of India is allowed and the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 01.07.2008 passed in A.B.A. No. 1147 of 2008 is hereby cancelled. Cr.M.P No. 250 of 2012 seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bistupur P.S Case No. 129 of 2008 is dismissed. I.A. No. 8411 of 2017 filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 of Cr.M.P. No. 250 of 2012 for vacating the interim order dated 30.01.2013 stands disposed of accordingly.