ORDER : 1. The present petition is for cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No. 1. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the application has been filed by the complainant, who happens to be the wife of the respondent No. 1 and the matrimonial disputes and the battle for custody of the child are going on. This Court by order dated 09.03.2017 granted first bail to respondent No. 1 in M. Cr. C.A No. 1256 of 2016 under Section 498A, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, Section 377 IPC was added and again on 26.07.2017 in M. Cr. C.A. No. 568/2017 anticipatory bail was granted to respondent No. 1 for which the trial is pending. The instant petition has been filed by the wife for cancellation of bail on the ground that the bail condition imposed by the bail order has been flouted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the custody battle in between the husband & wife is pending, wherein the family Court by its order dated 07.10.2021 given the visiting right to the respondent/father to allow him to meet during the birthday of the child. It is further stated that on the birthday the child fell sick, as such he was forced to admit to the hospital. At such point of time the respondent No. 1 reached to the hospital and tried to outrage the modesty of the wife which was recorded in the CCTV camera, which was seized by the police, for which the FIR was lodged. Consequently, the respondent has flouted the condition imposed which mandate that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; or the applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. He therefore submits that the bail granted to him may be cancelled. He placed his reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vipan Kumar Dhir vs. State of Punjab and Another, CRA Nos. 1161-1162 of 2021, decided on 04.10.2021. 4. He therefore submits that the bail granted to him may be cancelled. He placed his reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vipan Kumar Dhir vs. State of Punjab and Another, CRA Nos. 1161-1162 of 2021, decided on 04.10.2021. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 would submit that the reply would reflect that the conditions of the bail has not been flouted. He refers to the documents which is of the government hospital to show that it bears an endorsement that she herself has left the hospital of her own will and further refers to a letter which was filed in another proceeding to show that the false evidence was given by the wife. He further submits that the alleged incident though is of 11.10.2021 but after delay of six days, the second FIR was lodged. Therefore, only to harass the respondent/husband the FIR has been lodged. State has also filed the reply and it is stated that State agencies in discharge of their statutory duties have filed the final report and it is stated that dispute in between the parties is of matrimonial nature. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Dolat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 , has observed that: “Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.” 7. Further the Supreme Court in the matter of X vs. State of Telangana and Another, (2018) 16 SCC 511 reiterated the view taken in the matter of CBI vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan, (2011) 5 SCC 296 and more recently in Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. (2018) 3 SCC 22 and observed thus at Para 15: “23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.” 8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, it would show that prima facie the matrimonial dispute exists in between the parties which inflated to different report & counter reports/cases. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, it would show that prima facie the matrimonial dispute exists in between the parties which inflated to different report & counter reports/cases. Initially a report was made under Section 498A, 354 IPC along with Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein after grant of bail, another Section 377 was added, wherein this Court has already granted bail to the respondent/husband. Subsequently, in a custody battle of child, the family Court by its order dated 07.10.2021 has ordered that the husband can meet the son and visitation right was given and on the birthday he was allowed to go to home of the petitioner. While such visitation right was to be executed the incident happened as it is stated that on the date of birthday when the child became sick he was admitted to the hospital. According to the petitioner when the respondent went there and misbehaved for which the FIR has been lodged by wife which bears No. 0974 of 2021. Perusal of the FIR would show that wife alleged the husband wanted to take away the child and when it was objected, a scene was created in the hospital and during such process efforts were made to outrage her modesty. According to the State for the second offence the FIR was lodged and the charge-sheet is also filed. Therefore, the husband/respondent is facing two criminal cases before the Court one is for Section 498A IPC and other offences and second is for the incident happened in the hospital. 9. If the facts are evaluated in the backdrop of the relation of the parties, it appears that for a different offence charge-sheet was filed and since there would be a different yardstick for cancellation of bail and no supervening circumstances have been made out which would warrant for cancellation of bail as has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of X vs. State of Telangana and Another, (2018) 16 SCC 511 , prima-facie nothing exists in case which would show that the respondent No. 1 has done any act to make any inducement to any witness or has acted in a manner which would be prejudicial to a fair trial. 10. No circumstances since has been made out which would deprive him of his liberty. Therefore, I do not find any reason to cancel the bail. 10. No circumstances since has been made out which would deprive him of his liberty. Therefore, I do not find any reason to cancel the bail. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.