JUDGMENT : This application under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by the applicant, Shri Jumko Likam of Village Digalmukh, under Seijosa Police Station, District Pake-Kesang, Arunachal Pradesh, for setting aside and quashing the impugned bail order, dated 01.07.2021, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bomdila, in Bail Application No. 92/2021 (Shri Lukdam Bojir Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh), in Seijosa P.S. Case No. 04/2021, under Sections 363/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 376 and section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 75 of JJ Act. 2. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned bail order, dated 01.07.2021, the learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila, has enlarged the accused, Shri Lukbi Bojir, S/o Marluk Bojir of Village Tirbin, under Police Station Tirbin, District Lepa-Rada, Arunachal Pradesh, on bail. 3. Heard Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. O. Pada, learned Special Public Prosecutor, SIT, representing State respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Mukbom Pertin, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 4. The factual background leading to filing of this petition is briefly stated as under: “In the year 2018, Shri Jumko Likam, of Village-Dighalmukh, P.S.-Seijosa, allowed his daughter-Ms. Tupi Likam (actual name withheld) (08 years), to stay with Lukbi Bojir, who was a teacher in Itanagar Govt. School, on the request and assurance of taking good care her and providing good education to her. Shri Lukbi Bojir also assured him that once in every year his daughter will visit her native place during school vacation. But, Lukbi Bojir failed to keep his promise. He never visited the house of Jumko Likam with his daughter and whenever inquired about her well-being over phone, he always informed that his daughter is fine and doing well in study. But, Lukbi Bojir failed to keep his promise. He never visited the house of Jumko Likam with his daughter and whenever inquired about her well-being over phone, he always informed that his daughter is fine and doing well in study. During the second wave of lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic, Lukbi Bojir informed him through phone to hand over his daughter and directed him to visit Itanagar and when he visited Itanagar, then Lukbi Bojir asked him to come to Pangin Village, where he had been allegedly posted, and on 06.05.2021, when he went to Pangin Village, Lukbi Bojir asked him to come to Tuting Town and on his direction, he halted at Aalo for some days and on 24.05.2021, Lukbi Bojir asked him to come to Pasighat Town where he handed over his daughter at Bus Station and thereafter he fled away. Then the Jumko Likam noticed abnormality in her conduct due to pain and on reaching home, he shocked to found multiple fresh and old injuries all over her body and front upper teeth broken, injury marks over inner thighs, blunt mark over left leg, marks over backbone in lumber regions with line of black bruise mark alongside, swelling of right leg thigh including bruise mark over foot and toe, fresh wound over chest and stomach, swelling over face, chick and lips with fresh injuries, swelling and injuries over left hand wrist and when asked, his daughter reveals that she was brutally subjected to cruelty and physical assault everyday by Lukbi Bojir and his wife. Then, the applicant lodged one F.I.R. with the Officer-In-Charge, women Police Station Itanagar on 26.05.2021, and on receipt of the same, the Officer-In-Charge, Women Police Station, Itanagar, registered a zero numbered case under Sections 363/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 75 of the JJ Act. Later on, it was registered as Seijosa P.S. Case No. 04/2021, and thereafter it was handed over to SIT on 05.07.21. The Investigating Officer(I.O.) then got the victim examined by Doctor and collected the report. Then seeing the report of Doctor, the I.O. has added section 376 Indian Penal Code read with section 6 of the POCSO Act, to its original sections. Then, apprehending arrest, Shri Lukbi Bojir preferred one petition before the ld. Sessions Judge, Bomdila on 07.06.2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.06.2021. In the said order the ld. Then seeing the report of Doctor, the I.O. has added section 376 Indian Penal Code read with section 6 of the POCSO Act, to its original sections. Then, apprehending arrest, Shri Lukbi Bojir preferred one petition before the ld. Sessions Judge, Bomdila on 07.06.2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.06.2021. In the said order the ld. Sessions Judge, Bomdila after perusing case diary, has observed that the accused has no clean antecedent and he has four cases such as:- (i) Tirbin P.S. Case No. 06/09, u/s-147/148/506/427/34 IPC, (ii) Tirbin P.S. Case No. 01/2013, u/s-352 IPC (iii) Basar P.S. Case No. 11/2015, u/s 147/149/354/371 IPC (iv) Basar P.S. Case No. 12/2015, u/s-417/419/500/34 IPC, and in some cases he has been convicted, and that the victim is in Hospital (TRIHMS) and under trauma, and MLC report of the victim shows that she was subjected to sexual assault, and recording of the statement of the victim is very much necessary and that statement of the alleged juvenile, who allegedly committed sexual assault on the victim is recorded and the same and the enquiry report does not reveal commission of sexual assault by him and thereafter rejected the petition. Consequent upon, the accused surrendered at the Police Station and the I.O. has arrested him 7.06.2021, and forwarded him to judicial custody. Then accused Lokbi Bojir preferred regular bail application, No. 92/2021, under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila. Thereafter, hearing learned Advocates of both sides the learned Court below has allowed the petition and directed to release the accused on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount with some conditions, vide order dated 01.07.2021. While enlarging him on bail the ld. Sessions Judge, Bomdila observed that the juvenile-Mantu Praja admitted committing the offence of sexual assault upon the victim girl, and the prosecution side has failed to make out a case against accused Lokbi Bojir, statement of the victim is not yet recorded and as such principle of presumption is not available against him under section 29 of the POCSO Act, the I.O. has failed to communicate with the attending doctors about the status of the victim to give statement, there is no document to show that section 326 Indian Penal Code is attracted and he is not likely to hamper investigation.” 5. Being highly aggrieved, the applicant preferred this application under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. on the following grounds:- (i) that, the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that when the police projecting the case in the line of the accused on the specific plea of the accused that aggravated penetrative sexual assault might have been committed by one Montu Porja, which was supported by the Case Diary produced by the Investigating Officer and without considering the statement of Montu Porja and the medical legal report and without perusing the 164 statement of the victim, the ld. Sessions Judge has granted bail to the accused. (ii) that, the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that the offence falls under POCSO Act which is special law and the punishment prescribed for the offence is not less than 10 (ten) years which may extend to life imprisonment; (iii) that, the learned Court below failed to take into account the whole conduct of accused, who was absconding for more than 23 days, and that he was the only guardian of the victim in the year 2019 and he had the duty to report about the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of the victim; and (iv) that, the learned Court below failed to appreciate the material fact in the earlier Anticipatory Bail Application despite holding that the accused has no clean antecedent and then suddenly the ld. Court took U-turn on the basis of the report of the Investigating Officer that the juvenile delinquent committed the offence of sexual assault. (v) that, the learned Court below failed to take into account the provision of Section 29 of the POCSO Act and the learned Court below failed to give reason for enlarging the accused on bail and as such, it suffers from non-application of mind and the bail order is perverse, arbitrary therefore, it is contended to set aside the bail order. 6. It is to be mentioned here that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have filed affidavit-in-opposition denying all the allegation leveled against respondent No.3. 6. It is to be mentioned here that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have filed affidavit-in-opposition denying all the allegation leveled against respondent No.3. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 was asked to keep the daughter of the applicant, as he was unable to take care of 3 (three) daughters and that the victim girl was kept with his wife at Pasighat, where she was serving as a teacher of a Middle School, and the respondent No. 3 was posted at Upper Primary Govt. School, Ngomdir, and as there was accommodation problem in the new place of posting, the victim girl was kept at a rented house along with mother-in-law and the respondent No. 3 thereafter, she was taken to Pangin and from Pangin to Ngomdir and admitted in school, in Class-I. It is also stated that rejection of anticipatory bail is not a ground to cancel the bail petition and that the respondent No. 3 was falsely implicated only because the victim girl was under his guardianship and while the anticipatory bail was moved, Section 6 of the POCSO Act was not added. It is also stated that the allegation of sexual assault was informed in the year 2019 and the informant requested him to keep silent for future reputation of the child and on his own investigation, he came to know that Montu Porja, the house helper, on several previous occasion, spent several time along with the victim girl and on a certain day, Montu Porja and the victim girl went missing for a long time during heavy rain, but when they returned they were found to be dry, and on being questioned the victim reveals that Montu Porja touched her private parts and did bad things to her. On such revelation, Montu Porja became scared and ran away from the house of the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, a missing report was filed with the Pasighat Police Station. On such revelation, Montu Porja became scared and ran away from the house of the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, a missing report was filed with the Pasighat Police Station. Later on, Montu Porja was found in the custody of Child Protection Officer, Pasighat, and he surrendered before the Police and his statement was recorded and he admitted his guilt and the Investigating Officer clearly stated that Montu Porja admitted his guilt and that respondent No. 3 is falsely implicated and that the grounds shown for cancellation of bail in the petition are not the proper grounds and there is no question of misusing the liberty granted to him and that he has never violated any condition of the bail and no such averment has been made in the petition about tampering the witnesses. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Thereafter, another additional affidavit was filed by the applicant/complainant, wherein, it is stated that when the Criminal Miscellaneous Application was pending before the Court on 26.08.2021, one Dopken Bojir and another Dobli Bojir of Digalmukh Village, who happened to be the brother and close family relative of respondent No. 3, threatened and beaten the complainant/deponent and used force to him to withdraw the F.I.R. of Seijosa P.S. Case No. 04/2021, wherein, respondent No. 3 is the accused, whose bail order is being challenged before this Court, while the applicant refused to withdraw the case, then Dopken Bojir and Dobli Bojir assaulted him brutally and injured him and then he lodged another complaint before the Seijosa Police Station on 29.08.2021, and that on many other occasion also, there is serious threat and inducement to withdraw the case on behalf of the accused, Lukbi Bojir, upon his family members and close relatives to withdraw the case. 8. Thereafter, respondent No.2 and 3 have filed affidavit-in-reply to the said additional affidavit and denied all the averments made in the additional affidavit. 9. Mr. L. Perme, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the impugned order is perverse due to non-application of law and also due to wrong appreciation of facts and law and as such, it is not at all sustainable. 9. Mr. L. Perme, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the impugned order is perverse due to non-application of law and also due to wrong appreciation of facts and law and as such, it is not at all sustainable. It is further submitted that section 376 Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act was added also wherein the punishment prescribed is not less than 10 (ten) years and it may be life or death also and that the offence is registered under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code also and the punishment prescribed for the same is also more than 10 (ten) years. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has rejected earlier Anticipatory Bail Application on 14.06.2021, but allowed the regular bail on 01.07.2021, in absence of 161 Statement of the delinquent juvenile and also of the victim girl, that the Court below should have been circumspect and if the Investigating Officer committed misconduct then the benefit of this will goes to the victim not to the accused. It is further submitted that the ld. Sessions Judge has failed to draw presumption available under section 29 of the POCSO Act despite availability of sufficient materials. It is also submitted that the accused was absconding for last 23 days and the victim was in hospital for 20 days and the Court below also totally ignored the other aspects and, therefore, it is contended to allow the petition by cancelling the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, Mr. M. Pertin, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3, i.e. the bail or and the accused, submitted that granting bail is a different matter and cancelling the bail is a different matter and bail can be cancelled on 2 (two) conditions when the accused misuse his liberty and due to supervening circumstances. But, here in this case, none of the 2 (two) conditions have been fulfilled so as to cancel the bail. There is no material to show violation of any conditions and no supervening circumstances arises. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has arrested juvenile, Montu Porja, and it is he who committed the offence and the learned Court below, after considering the same, has granted him bail. Mr. There is no material to show violation of any conditions and no supervening circumstances arises. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has arrested juvenile, Montu Porja, and it is he who committed the offence and the learned Court below, after considering the same, has granted him bail. Mr. Pertin, the learned Senior Counsel, further submitted that the accused has submitted affidavit and additional affidavit and clarified all the position and no case for cancellation of bail is being made out here in this case and, therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition and in support of his submission, Mr. Pertin, the learned Senior Counsel, has referred following case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daulat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 735, and Manjit Prakash and others vs. Shobha Devi and another, (2009) 13 SCC 785 . 11. On the other hand, Mr. O. Pada, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the SIT, produced the case diary before the court and submitted that the case is very serious in nature and considering the seriousness, it was transferred to SIT on 05.07.2021, by the Govt. It is further submitted that the learned Court below without considering certain relevant facts, granted bail to the accused in a mechanical manner. It is further submitted that after availing the bail, the accused is trying to tamper prosecution evidences and a case is also registered to that effect. Therefore, it is contended to allow the petition by cancelling the bail granted to the accused vide the impugned order, dated 01.07.2021. In support of his submissions, Mr. Pada, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, SIT, has referred to following case laws, in support of his submissions :- (i) Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118 ; (ii) State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 ; (iii) Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180 ; and (iv) Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 . 12. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, we have gone through the affidavits and the documents placed on record and also through the case diary. Before directing to discussion, we deemed it appropriate to discuss some of the case laws relating to cancellation of bail so as to deal with the present petition with greater precision. 12. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, we have gone through the affidavits and the documents placed on record and also through the case diary. Before directing to discussion, we deemed it appropriate to discuss some of the case laws relating to cancellation of bail so as to deal with the present petition with greater precision. In Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the position as under : “Under Section 439(2) of the new Code, a High Court may commit a person released on bail under Chapter XXXIII by any Court including the Court of Session to custody, if it thinks appropriate to do so. It must, however, be made clear that a Court of Session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted by the High Court unless new circumstances arise during the progress of the trial, after an accused person has been admitted to bail by the High Court. If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior Court under Section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the High Court.” 13. Subsequent judgments have forward this discussion and differentiated between cases where cancellation of bail is sought on the basis of supervening circumstances which arise from facts which happening after the order granting bail was given or facts which were not before the judge while passing order granting bail and cases where cancellation of bail is sought on the ground that order granting bail is illegal or perverse. 14. In Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. Vs. The State of Telangana & Anr. [(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1974-1975 of 2019) arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 14. In Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. Vs. The State of Telangana & Anr. [(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1974-1975 of 2019) arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8882-8883 of 2019], Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as under : “It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail.” 15. In Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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. It is also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that these grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to. 16. Keeping in mind above principles, so laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with cancellation of bail, now an endeavor will be made to examine the impugned order passed dated 01.07.2021, by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila, whether granting of bail to the accused is perverse and suffers from infirmities, and thereby, resulted in miscarriage of justice. 17. A careful perusal of the order of the learned Court below, dated 01.07.2021, reveals that, while the bail was granted to the accused, the statement of the victim girl, neither under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. nor under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, was recorded as it appears from the Case Diary. 17. A careful perusal of the order of the learned Court below, dated 01.07.2021, reveals that, while the bail was granted to the accused, the statement of the victim girl, neither under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. nor under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, was recorded as it appears from the Case Diary. As at the relevant time, the victim girl was under mental shock and undergoing treatment. It also appears that the statement of the alleged juvenile, namely Montu Porja, was not recorded and without considering their statements the learned Court below simply, after hearing the parties came to a finding that the sexual offence under POCSO Act and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code seems to have been committed by Juvenile, Montu Porja, and that the prosecution side has failed in making out a case against the accused, Lukbi Bojir, at that time. 18. It is not in dispute that on the day of granting bail to the accused on 01.07.2021, the victim was undergoing treatment for mental shock and trauma and was not in a position to give statement either under section 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. But, the MLC report of the victim has already been collected by the I.O. and on the basis of which section 6 of the POCSO Act was added by the I.O. In view of this, it becomes obligatory to the ld. Court below to wait and peruse the statement of the victim before arriving at a finding that the prosecution side has failed to make out a case against the accused. In case of sexual assault, the victim is the prime witness for the prosecution. The ld. Court below also failed to consider the fact that the victim girl was with the accused since 2018. 19. It also appears from the impugned order that the Court below has not considered the statement of the juvenile, Montu Porja, who admitted having committed sexual assault upon the victim girl. It was not before him at that time. On the other hand the Status Report of the I.O., available on the case diary, which was produced by the ld. It also appears from the impugned order that the Court below has not considered the statement of the juvenile, Montu Porja, who admitted having committed sexual assault upon the victim girl. It was not before him at that time. On the other hand the Status Report of the I.O., available on the case diary, which was produced by the ld. Special P.P. for SIT, reveals that one Bomnya Likham appeared at the Crime Branch Police Station and produced a video footage, wherein, the juvenile, Montu Porja, is seen identifying the photograph of the victim girl and stated that he had never had any sexual intercourse with the victim girl and the said video has been seized by him. Further it appears that the I.O. has recorded the statement of Montu Porja and his father and Montu Porja reiterated that he never had any sex with the victim girl as at the relevant time, he was at Chillipam, under Rupa Police Station, from where he was apprehended by Seijosa Police and he was made to admit the crime and threatened by the main accused party of dire consequences and out of fear and nervousness, he had admitted the same. The status report also reveals that two relatives of the accused, Lukbi Bojir, came to the house of Mantu Praja enquiring about his presence and since Montu Porja was at Rupa, and working at a Cabbage Garden, his address was given to those 2 (two) persons. 20. It also appears that in the meantime, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and also got her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, in the court, which are available in the Case Diary. Perusal of the same reveals sufficient incriminating material against the accused Lukbi Bojir, under section 6 of the POCSO Act. 21. From the Additional affidavit submitted by the applicant reveals that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him and indulged in threatening and assaulting the complainant. Though the accused has denied the same in his affidavit in reply, yet the same left this court unconvinced about its correctness, as the I.O. has collected sufficient materials in support of the same. 22. Though the accused has denied the same in his affidavit in reply, yet the same left this court unconvinced about its correctness, as the I.O. has collected sufficient materials in support of the same. 22. Thus, the supervening circumstances, which emerged from the above discussion, can be recapitulated as under :- (i) The accused has misused his liberty by threatening and intimidating the witnesses. He has threatened and assaulted the complainant to withdraw the case and in this regard on a complaint made by Jumko Likam, Sijosa P.S. Case No.08/2021, under section 341/323/506/34 IPC has been registered on 29.08.2012. (ii) Statement of the juvenile namely Mantu Praja and his father is recorded on 11.07.2021 and Mantu Praja has denied having committed sexual assault upon the victim. (iii) From the statement of father of Mantu Praja it becomes apparent that an attempt to tamper with evidence was made by the accused and Mantu was made to confess having sex with the victim under threat. (iv) Statement of the victim under section 161 and under section 164 Cr.P.C., is recorded and she has implicated the accused Lukbi Bojir with the offence of sexual assault. 23. Besides, the order is perverse because of non-consideration of the following material facts and circumstances :- (i) non consideration of the statement of the juvenile Mantu Praja, despite its observation in the order of anticipatory bail dated 14.06.2021 to that effect, (ii) Non consideration of statement of the victim girl under section 161 as well as under section 164 Cr.P.C. Despite its observation to that effect in the order of anticipatory bail dated 14.06.2021, (iii) Non consideration of the fact that the accused has no clean antecedent, despite its observation in the order of anticipatory bail dated 14.06.2021. It may be noted here that in some of the case the accused was convicted. (iv) Non consideration of the MLC report of the victim which reveals that the victim was subjected to sexual assault and she also sustained grievous injury and as many as 13 other injuries on her person. (v) The ld. Sessions Judge has held that presumption under section 29 of the POCSO Act is not attracted against the accused despite availability of sufficient materials against the accused. (vi) The ld. Sessions Judge has failed to balance properly the right and personal liberty of the accused with that of societal interest. (vii) The ld. (v) The ld. Sessions Judge has held that presumption under section 29 of the POCSO Act is not attracted against the accused despite availability of sufficient materials against the accused. (vi) The ld. Sessions Judge has failed to balance properly the right and personal liberty of the accused with that of societal interest. (vii) The ld. Sessions Judge has contradicted his own view taken in taken in the anticipatory bail petition giving no proper justification. 24. Thus, considered the submissions of the ld. Advocates of all the sides, and further considering the principles of law laid down in the cases discussed above, and also referred by the counsel of concerned parties, detailed discussion of which is avoided for the sake of brevity, and balancing the valuable rights and personal liberty of the accused with that of the societal interest, this court is of the view that the privilege of bail granted to the accused, vide order dated 01.07.2021, by the ld. Sessions Judge, Bomdila, required to be cancelled. 25. In the result, the petition under section 439(2) Cr.P.C., stands allowed. Bail granted to the accused vide order dated 01.07.2021, by the ld. Sessions Judge, Bomdila, stands cancelled on the twin ground of perversity and also due to supervening circumstances discussed above. Accordingly, this Misc. Application under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. stands disposed of. The case diary be sent back along with a copy of this order.