JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. T. Khro, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland. I have also heard Mr. D.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is a petition praying for cancellation of bail granted by this Court on 02.07.2020 in Bail Application No. 1326 of 2020. 3. On 5th February, 2020 Dr. Imtisangba, a Pastor of Chumukedima Ao Baptist Church lodged an FIR before police stating that he and some other person wanted to visit Holy Land and for that matter they approached the respondent Ripu Daman Singh at New Delhi. Mr. Singh ran a travel agency by the name and style of TripCraving. It is alleged that Mr. Singh could not arrange the travel documents in time therefore the informant and his associates had to reschedule the tour from 10th September, 2019 to 4th September, 2020. It is further alleged till the month of November, 2019 the respondent could not arrange the tour. According to the informant the respondent Ripu Daman Singh had sent them some fake air tickets. Therefore, on 29th January, 2020 a notice was sent to Ripu Daman Singh asking him to refund Rs. 34,65,000/-which was given to him for arranging the tour. The notice also demanded return of 40 nos. of passports which were handed over to Ripu Daman Singh for arranging the tour. 4. Police registered the case under Sections 406/420/465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Nagaland police went to New Delhi and arrested Ripu Daman Singh. They brought him to Nagaland. He was sent to judicial custody on his arrival at Nagaland. Finally police filed the charge sheet against the respondent Ripu Daman Singh. Thereafter Trial Court framed the charges under Section 406, 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial started accordingly. 6. The respondent made a prayer before this Court for granting bail and he was allowed to go on bail by this Court on 02.07.2020 in Bail Application No. 1326 of 2020. 7. Now the petitioner has filed this application for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent. The only ground taken by the petitioner is that the respondent might not appear in the Trial Court to face the trial if he succeeds in getting out of Nagaland. 8. On this point Mr. 7. Now the petitioner has filed this application for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent. The only ground taken by the petitioner is that the respondent might not appear in the Trial Court to face the trial if he succeeds in getting out of Nagaland. 8. On this point Mr. Jain has submitted that if the police can go all the way to New Delhi to arrest the respondent there, police will be able to do that again if he fails to appear before the Trial Court. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by learned counsels. 10. A three-judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi, reported in 1978 (2) SCC 411 , made the following elemental distinction in defining the nature of exercise while cancelling bail: "Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another, It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail already granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial.” 11. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481 , the Supreme Court has held that bail can be cancelled where (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. 12. Reverting to the case in hand, rejection of bail stands on one footing and cancellation of bail stand on another. Cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the personal liberty of an individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to. 13. Offence under section 406 is punishable with imprisonment of 3 years only. 12. Reverting to the case in hand, rejection of bail stands on one footing and cancellation of bail stand on another. Cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the personal liberty of an individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to. 13. Offence under section 406 is punishable with imprisonment of 3 years only. Similarly the offence under section 420 is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and the offence under section 465 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 2 years. All these offences are triable by a First Class Judicial Magistrate. Without the offences being proved against him, the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for several months. In my considered opinion the prayer of the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent Ripu Daman Singh is not satisfactory and devoid of any sound reasoning. 14. Another aspect of the matter that has come to my mind is that if the respondent gets convicted in this case, at best he might be awarded the sentence of seven years of imprisonment. But the aggrieved persons would not get back their money. Rs.34 lakhs is a big amount. Why they are not interested in recovering the money. The petitioner has not disclosed anything about institution of any money suit for recovery of the money. 15. Be that as it may, I am of the considered opinion that the apprehension that the respondent might not come to face trial if he succeeds in getting out of Nagaland is not at all acceptable in the eye of law. Such a ground is not sufficient for cancellation of bail earlier granted. Therefore the prayer for cancellation of bail is rejected. The Interlocutory Application stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly.