ORDER : In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. None appears for respondent no.2, despite service. 3. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant has moved this bail cancellation application on the ground that the respondent in continuity of the earlier offence has once again committed offence, for which, FIR has been lodged bearing no.23/2021 on 16.02.2021 under Sections 458, 384, 504 & 506 IPC. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while bail was granted on 04.01.2021, respondent no.2 forcibly entered the marriage venue of the petitioner, hurled abuses and threatened to kidnap the couple and pour acid over them. 5. Learned PP submits that the allegations made in the FIR No.23/2021 has been thoroughly investigated and have been found to be correct as respondent no.2 arrived at marriage venue while he was drunk with a toy pistol and tried to attack the family members. He was apprehended on the spot by the police and charge-sheet regarding the said offence was filed before the trial court on 30.04.2021. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has shown the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1993 SC 1 , relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “11. On a conjoint reading of Sections 57 and 167 of the Code it is clear that the legislative object was to ensure speedy investigation after a person has been taken in custody. It expects that the investigation should be completed within 24 hours and if this is not possible within 15 days and failing that within the time stipulated in Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code. The law expects that the investigation must be completed with despatch and the role of the Magistrate is to over-see the course of investigation and to prevent abuse of the law by the investigating agency. As stated earlier, the legislative history shows that before the introduction of the proviso to Section 167(2) the maximum time allowed to the investigating agency was 15 days under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 failing which the accused could be enlarged on bail. As stated earlier, the legislative history shows that before the introduction of the proviso to Section 167(2) the maximum time allowed to the investigating agency was 15 days under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 failing which the accused could be enlarged on bail. From experience this was found to be insufficient particularly in complex cases and hence the proviso was added to enable the Magistrate to detain the accused in custody for a period exceeding 15 days but not exceeding the outer limit fixed under the proviso (a) to that sub-section. We may here mention that the period prescribed by the proviso has been enlarged by State amendments and wherever there is such enlargement, the proviso will have to be read accordingly. The purpose and object of providing for the release of the accused under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 on the failure of the investigating agency completing the investigation within the extended time allowed by the proviso was to instill a sense of urgency in the invest ting agency to complete the investigation promptly and within the statutory time-frame. The deeming fiction of correlating the release on bail under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 with Chapter XXXIII, i.e. Sections 437 and 439 of the Code, was to treat the order as one passed under the latter provisions. Once the order of release is by fiction of law an order passed under Sections 437(1) or (2) or 439(1) it follows as a natural consequence that the said order can be cancelled under Sub- section (5) of Section 437 or Sub-section (2) of Section 439 on considerations relevant for cancellation of an order thereunder. As stated in Raghubir Singh's case the grounds for cancellation under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Sections 437(1) or (2) or 439(1) 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. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. 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." “40. The purpose of interpretation is to sustain the law. The court must interpret the words or the language in the statute to promote public good and misuse of power is interdicted. Criminal law primarily concerns with social protection and prescribes rules of behaviour to be observed by all. Law punishes for deviance, transgression, violation or omission. Liberty of the individual and security and order in the society or public order are delicate and yet paramount considerations. Undue emphasis on either would impede harmony and hampers public good as well as distrub social weal and peace. To keep the weal balanced, must be the prime duty of the Judiciary. The purpose of the proviso to Section 167(2) read with Chapter XXXIII of the Code is to impress upon the need for expeditious completion of the investigation by the police officer within the prescribed limitation and to prevent Taxity in that behalf. Orr its default the Magistrate shall release the accused on bail if the accused is ready and does furnish the bail. At the same time during investigation or trial the power of the court to have the bail cancelled and have the accused taken into custody are preserved. But as interpreted by this Court on the happening of the catalyst act i.e. expiry of 90/60 days the hammer of release on default would fall. Later filing of the charge-sheet (challan) is not by itself relevant to have the bail cancelled on committing the accused for trial or taking cognizance of the offence. As emphasised by this Court in Bashir's and Raghubir's cases, on curing the defect by filing the chargesheet (challan) if the prosecution seeks to have the bail cancelled on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest and commit him into the custody, prima facie at that stage, strong grounds indeed are necessary. For cancellation of the bail after filing of the chargesheet the factum of dismissal of the bail on the earlier occasion is not relevant. For cancellation of the bail after filing of the chargesheet the factum of dismissal of the bail on the earlier occasion is not relevant. But during investigation some strong prima facie evidence and gravity and magnitude of the crime or the manner in which the crime was committed and other attending circumstances may be relevant as prima facie grounds to have a fresh look to cancel the bail. The grounds for cancellation of the bail in Chapter XXXIII are, de hors the merits in the matter, namely, necessity due to the conduct of the accused and abuse of liberty i.e. obstruction of the smooth investigation or suborning witnesses or attempting to tamper the evidence, threatening the witnesses with dire consequences or making or attempting to remove himself beyond the reach of the court to hamper the smooth trial, etc. are independent of the merits in the matter. Cancellation of the bail would be necessitated by the conduct of the accused himself after the release. I agree with brother Punchhi, J. that it might be possible to abuse the proviso by deliberate delay in completing the investigation to facilitate the release of the accused on bail. I also agree that merits brought out in the charge-sheet and attending circumstances are relevant, as the bail, was granted due to default of the investigating officer without court's adverting to the merits but strong grounds are necessary to cancel the bail. To that extent brother Ahmadi, J. also laid emphasis, namely, strong grounds are to be made out in the charge-sheet. With respect I agree with brother Ahmadi's emphasis that filing the charge-sheet (challan) itself is not sufficient. However, I lay emphasis that the High Court or the Court of Sessions should consider the merits of the case. With respect, K.J. Shetty, J., laid emphasis on the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet and the power for cancellation under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code. Unfortunately, the ratio in Parida's and Bashir's cases was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge, which was directly on the point and for the reasons stated I find it difficult to agree with the learned Judge in that respect. I am in full agreement with the view expressed by brother Ahmadi, J. and the order proposed by him.” 7. I am in full agreement with the view expressed by brother Ahmadi, J. and the order proposed by him.” 7. Learned Public Prosecutor fairly submits that even after facing prosecution for heinous crimes under Sections 363, 366, 342, 450 and 376 (2)(N) IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, if the respondent no.2 has dared to go and attack the same family at the time of the marriage function of the petitioner, then it is a fit case for cancellation of bail. This Court finds that the offence committed by respondent no.2 is in fact a continuance of the earlier offences, which were also of heinous nature, thus, finds sufficient cause for cancellation of bail, as the conduct of the accused necessitates the same. 8. This Court also takes note of the precedent law in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Chintu @ Aslam Sher Khan (D.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.329 of 2020 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.594 of 2009, decided on 07.01.2021), wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench held as under:- “In this matter, State has placed on record sufficient documents which clearly indicates involvement of accused-appellant in three criminal cases of serious nature, committed by him, while he was on bail in DB Criminal Appeal No.594/2009. In all these subsequent cases, after investigation charge-sheet has been filed in competent courts and this goes to show the involvement of the accused-appellant in these subsequent criminal activities. No one can be allowed to enjoy the benefits of bail if he misuses the benefit granted to him under the provisions of law. The grant of bail is a privilege which can be enjoyed by the accused-appellant only till the date he complies with the conditions imposed upon him. In this case, there is serious violation of the condition imposed upon the accused-appellant. Therefore, this privilege cannot be allowed to be enjoyed by the accused-appellant any more and his bail is liable to be cancelled. In these circumstances, therefore, the application of State deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed and bail granted to accused-appellant under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 594/2009 is hereby cancelled. It is directed that accused-appellant Chintu @ Aslam Sher Khan S/o Ahmed Ali, be taken into custody forthwith in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 594/2009. Arrest warrants be issued. It is directed that accused-appellant Chintu @ Aslam Sher Khan S/o Ahmed Ali, be taken into custody forthwith in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 594/2009. Arrest warrants be issued. Trial Court is directed to proceed accordingly.” 9. This Court, taking into consideration the judgments rendered in; Aslam Babalal Desai (supra) by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the judgment passed by this Court in; State of Rajasthan (supra) and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case deems it appropriate to allow the application seeking cancellation of bail. 10. This Court takes note of the fact that after bail the respondent no.2’ act attracted another FIR from the same family, bearing FIR No.23/2021 lodged on 16.02.2021 under Sections 458, 384, 504 & 506 IPC and after thorough investigation chargesheet has been filed in the said FIR. 11. The act of respondent no.2 in continuing to harass the complainant’s family despite being given benefit of bail shows that the accused is misusing his liberty by indulging in similar kind of criminal activity, which is a continuing offence and is causing fear and trauma to the girl’s family. Similar kind of activity despite having been given bail is direct attack on the rule of law, thus, it is a fit case for cancellation of bail. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 04.01.2021 is set aside and the benefit of bail extended to non-petitioner no.2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands cancelled. It is directed that the accused-respondent no.2 Pawan Singh S/o. Devi Singh, be taken into custody forthwith and arrest warrants be issued. The trial court is directed to proceed accordingly. 13. The factual report furnished by learned Public Prosecutor is taken on record.