ORDER : This petition is filed under sections 437(5) and 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘CrPC’) by the petitioner/L.W.1, to cancel the bail granted to the 1st respondent herein (A-2) by this Court vide orders dated 19.07.2022 in Criminal Petition No.4832 of 2022 in connection with Crime No.130 of 2015 of Chittoor I town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 120B, 301 read with 511 & 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 235-1(b) & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, in connection with murder of Smt. Katari Anuradha, Chairperson of Chittoor Municipal Corporation and her husband on 17.11.2015, a case in Cr.No.130 of 2015 was registered in Chittoor I town Police Station and the police investigated into the matter, completed the investigation, filed charge sheet, the same was taken on file and the case was committed to Sessions Court and numbered as S.C.No.10 of 2016 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor. The 1st respondent herein is arrayed as A-2 in the said Sessions Case. The 1st respondent/A-2 got filed Criminal Petition No.4832 of 2022 for grant of bail stating that he is innocent, but he was falsely implicated, that the investigation is unfair and there is no possibility of commencement of trial in near future in view of the stay obtained by prosecution party. This Court granted bail to the petitioner/A-2 vide orders dated 19.07.2022 in Criminal petition No.4832 of 2022 imposing conditions. It is the further case of the petitioner that trial of the case was delayed only due to the delaying tactics played by the 1st respondent/A-2 and other co-accused, however the 1st respondent/A-2 by misrepresenting the facts as if the prosecution party was responsible for delaying the trial and dragging on the matter, obtained bail. In fact, the accused in this case filed so many frivolous petitions with untenable requests before the trial Court and upon dismissal, carried the matter to higher Courts and thus delayed the trial. It is the further case of the petitioner that one of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail stipulates that the 1st respondent/A-2 shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant or any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses. It is the further case of the petitioner that one of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail stipulates that the 1st respondent/A-2 shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant or any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses. After release, the 1st respondent/A-2, had met L.W.40 in the Sessions Case. Thus, the petitioner/A-2 has violated the conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the petitioner/A-2 has obtained bail by misrepresenting several facts and had also violated the conditions of bail, he is not entitled to continue on bail. Hence prayed to cancel the bail granted to the 1st respondent and consequently direct the 2nd respondent police to arrest the 1st respondent and remand him to judicial custody. 3. The 1st respondent/A-2 filed counter refuting the averments of the petition, inter alia contending that, the application filed under Section 439 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail on the ground of non-consideration of certain aspects is not maintainable and for such a relief appeal has to be filed before the appellate Court. It is pleaded that, the accused are not at all responsible for the delay occurred in commencement of the trial and moreover the prosecution party people herein are responsible for such a delay and that the investigation is biased. It is further stated that the 1st respondent/A-2, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, was released from District Jail, Chittoor at 6.30 p.m. on 22.07.2022 and thereafter he went to house of his friend by name Somasekhar to collect his clothes and other belongings and by the time he went to the house of his friend, birthday function of the said Somasekhar was going on and the 1st respondent/ A-2 participated in the birthday function, thereafter went to Chittoor I Town Police Station and from there left for his native place Mulabagal in Karnataka State. Except that the 1st respondent/A-2 had never contacted L.W.40 nor did he violate conditions imposed by this Court. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Except that the 1st respondent/A-2 had never contacted L.W.40 nor did he violate conditions imposed by this Court. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel, for Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner/L.W.1, Sri D. Vijaya Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/A-2 and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-state. 5. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the accused in this case are accustomed to filing frivolous and untenable petitions and getting orders of dismissal and thereafter carrying the matter to appellate Courts, obtaining stay orders and stalling the trial of the case. It is further submitted that on some occasions, some of the accused were not attending the Court to get Non-Bailable- Warrants issued against them and thus delayed the trial by all possible means. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the accused even went to the extent of filing petitions/memos expressing lack of confidence in the Presiding officer or Public Prosecutor only with a view to delay the trial. It is further submitted that they even filed Transfer petition seeking transfer of the Sessions Case and after getting considerable time, they not pressed the said petition. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the accused in Sessions Case have filed numerous untenable petitions and could succeed in breaking the trial schedule on four occasions. Despite the fact that the accused themselves are responsible for the delay occasioned in commencement of trial, the petitioner/A2 by misrepresenting that the prosecution party was putting hurdles to see that trial of the case should not commence and also stating that more than 130 witnesses have to be examined in this case and it takes considerable time, obtained bail. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the accused in this case have already won over one of the witness figured as L.W.24 in the charge sheet, they started victimizing the family members of the deceased with the aid of police to force them to come to terms, threatened the close associates of the petitioner/L.W.1 for the reason that they gave shelter to L.W.1 and keeping him away from the accused. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent/A2, after he was released on bail met L.W.40 and thereby he has violated one of the conditions imposed on him while granting bail. The learned senior counsel would further submit that there is no safety to the family members of the deceased and also to the witnesses, if the 1st respondent/A2 is continued on bail. The learned senior counsel would further submit that, since the 1st respondent/A-2 has obtained bail by misrepresenting the facts and as he has violated the condition imposed by this Court, the 1st respondent /A-2 cannot be permitted to continue on bail. Hence, prayed to allow the petition and cancel bail granted to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, Sri D. Vijaya Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/A-2 has submitted that the instant petition filed under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of the CrPC seeking cancellation of bail on the ground of non-consideration of certain aspects and misrepresentation of facts is not maintainable and for such a relief an appeal has to be preferred before the appellate Court. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision in Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.), 1978 CriLJ 129. The learned counsel would further submit that cancellation of bail is a harsh order since it interferes with the liberty of the individual and it must not be lightly resorted to and as no valid reasons are offered in the petition for seeking cancellation of bail, the same has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he relied o the decision in Myakala Dharmarajam and others v. State of Telangana and another, (2020) 2 SCC 743 . The learned counsel would further submit that the prosecution party is bent upon dragging on the trial purposely with an ulterior motive to keep the accused in jail as long as possible without trial. It is further submitted that filing petitions by some co-accused to get their grievances redressed cannot be found fault and cannot be termed as a delaying tactic. The learned counsel would further submit that pursuant to the orders of bail, the 1st respondent/A-2 was released from jail at about 6.30 p.m. on 22.07.2022 and thereafter he went to the house of his friend to collect his clothes and belongings and by the time he went there, birthday party of his friend was going on. The learned counsel would further submit that pursuant to the orders of bail, the 1st respondent/A-2 was released from jail at about 6.30 p.m. on 22.07.2022 and thereafter he went to the house of his friend to collect his clothes and belongings and by the time he went there, birthday party of his friend was going on. Thus, the petitioner/A-2 had never violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court. The learned counsel would further submit that neither L.W.40 nor the petitioner/L.W.1 gave any complaint to the police alleging any threat, coercion or inducement to L.W.40 and this itself shows that the allegations made by the petitioner in this petition are bereft of truth. For the above reasons, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/A-2 opposed the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that no report whatsoever was given to the police complaining any threat, inducement or meeting L.W.40 by the 1st respondent/A-2 and prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders. 8. It is appropriate to extract the observations made by their Lordships in Myakala Dharmarajam and others (supra 2) relied on by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/A-2 at paras-8, 9 and 11. “8. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 511 this 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. The above 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. 9. 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. 9. 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 [Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 614]. 10. Having perused the law laid down by this Court on the scope of the power to be exercised in the matter of cancellation of bails, it is necessary to examine whether the order passed by the Sessions Court granting bail is perverse and suffers from infirmities which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. No doubt, the Sessions Court did not discuss the material on record in detail, but there is an indication from the orders by which bail was granted that the entire material was perused before grant of bail. It is not the case of either the complainant Respondent 2 or the State that irrelevant considerations have been taken into account by the Sessions Court while granting bail to the appellants. The order of the Sessions Court by which the bail was granted to the appellants cannot be termed as perverse as the Sessions Court was conscious of the fact that the investigation was completed and there was no likelihood of the appellant tampering with the evidence.” 9. In the above referred decision, their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court enumerated the grounds on which bail can be cancelled. The observations would further go to show 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. 10. In Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (supra 1) relied on by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/A-2, their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court held at para-16 as follows : “16. Section 439 of the new Code confers special powers on High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. This was also the position under Section 498 CrPC of the old Code. Section 439 of the new Code confers special powers on High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. This was also the position under Section 498 CrPC of the old Code. That is to say, even if a Magistrate refuses to grant bail to an accused person, the High Court or the Court of Session may order for grant of bail in appropriate cases. Similarly under Section 439(2) of the new Code, the High Court or the Court of Session may direct any person who has been released on bail to be arrested and committed to custody. In the old Code, Section 498(2) was worded in somewhat different language when it said that a High Court or Court of Session may cause any person who has been admitted to bail under sub-section (1) to be arrested and may commit him to custody. In other words, under Section 498(2) of the old Code, a person who had been admitted to bail by the High Court could be committed to custody only by the High Court. Similarly, if a person was admitted to bail by a Court of Session, it was only the Court of Session that could commit him to custody. This restriction upon the power of entertainment of an application for committing a person, already admitted to bail, to custody, is lifted in the new Code under Section 439(2). 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. 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.” 11. In view of the observations made by their Lordships in the above referred citation, in the absence of any new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, the aggrieved person must approach the superior Court for cancellation of bail. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner did not bring any new circumstances to the notice of this Court. Thus, the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding non-consideration of certain aspects while granting bail to the petitioner/A-2 do not survive for consideration in this petition. 13. In view of the same, the only ground available to the petitioner is violation of condition imposed by this Court by the 2nd respondent/A-2. This Court, while granting bail to the 1st respondent/A-2 has imposed certain conditions. Condition No (iii) is extracted hereunder : “(iii) The petitioner (1st respondent/A2 herein) shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant or any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence” 14. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed on record a photograph, where A2, L.W.40 and some others were seen, is filed as a material paper along with the petition. According to the 1st respondent/A-2, he went to his friend’s house to collect his belongings, a party was going on there. 15. As per the prosecution, neither L.W.40 nor any of the prosecution party including the petitioner/L.W.1 made any complaint to police complaining any coercion, threat or inducement to L.W.40 by the 1st respondent/A-2. 16. According to the 1st respondent/A-2, he went to his friend’s house to collect his belongings, a party was going on there. 15. As per the prosecution, neither L.W.40 nor any of the prosecution party including the petitioner/L.W.1 made any complaint to police complaining any coercion, threat or inducement to L.W.40 by the 1st respondent/A-2. 16. In view of the above, it is not at all safe to hold that the 1st respondent/A-2 had deliberately met L.W.40 to influence him and thus violated condition No.(iii) imposed by this Court by relying on the photograph. If at all the petitioner has any grievance in that regard, he can approach appropriate authorities for redressal. Thus, there are no merits in the application and the same deserves dismissal. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.