JUDGMENT : ILESH J. VORA, J. 1. This application is filed by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail that has been granted to the respondents-accused by Additional Sessions Judge, Aravalli, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 265/2021. 2. Present application is filed mainly on the ground that the impugned order granting bail to the accused is improper, arbitrary and suffers from serious infirmities, which resulting into miscarriage of justice. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the complainant Kashyapbhai Patel lodged an FIR with Malpur Police Station, Dist. Aravalli, for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 394, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal code, alleging that the respondents and other accused were present at the General Meeting held at Malpur Nagrik Coop. Bank and during the proceedings of meeting, manager of the bank suspended one member namely Pinakinbhai Gor, as a result, present respondents have assaulted the bank manager and looted gold chain worth of Rs. 80,000/- as well as cash amount of Rs. 12,700/-. 4. Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the State submits that the offence is grave and serious and custodial interrogation is required to recover the gold chain and cash amount. However, the trial Court did not have considered this aspect while granting anticipatory bail to the respondents accused and therefore, being aggrieved by the order of granting anticipatory bail, the State has preferred present application for cancellation of bail. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Hriday Buch, learned counsel for the respondents accused would submit that, the Sessions Court has assigned proper and cogent reasons for granting anticipatory bail and therefore, no case is made out for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents herein. 6. Before dwelling into the issue raised by the respective parties, it is profitable to rely and refer upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. 2014 (6) SCC 508 , wherein the Apex Court held as under: “12.......It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of the second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court. 17. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima-facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima-facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment...” 7. Let us now consider the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apes Court in the context of the facts of the present case. Bare perusal of the FIR and material placed on record, it transpires that as many as 18 members were present in the meeting and on account of suspension of one of the members, as referred in the FIR, dispute has arisen. The accused were present representing the rival party and therefore, prima-facie, it appears that there was some exaggeration by the complainant on some factual aspects. In this factual background, this Court is of considered view that the Sessions Court has applied correct principles in allowing the anticipatory bail and has properly considered the material aspects and role attributed to the accused and has exercised its discretion judicially and thought it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the accused. There is significant difference between the order of rejecting the bail application and order for cancellation of bail. There is significant difference between the order of rejecting the bail application and order for cancellation of bail. The order rejecting the plea for bail in non-bailable offence is in discretionary domain of the Court, whereas, in the case of cancellation of bail, the Court is called upon to extinguish the liberty that has been formerly granted. It is necessary that “cogent and overwhelming reasons” are present for cancellation of bail. The position in law vis-a-vis cancellation of bail has been expounded and reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Daulat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349 , wherein the Apex Court held as under: “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. 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.” 8. In light of the settled principles as propounded by the Apex Court as observed above and applying the same to the facts of the present case, this Court is of considered view that it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the Special Court on irrelevant material or impugned order suffers from infirmities. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused has disobeyed the bail conditions or misused the privilege of bail. Hence, this Court finds that there is no merit in the application. 9. In view of the foregoing reasons, no case is made out for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, present application is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.