ORDER : 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 439(2) read with 482 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.01.2013 passed in A.B.A. No. 264 of 2012 in connection with Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No. 924 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 3766 of 2011 registered u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 34 I.P.C. Factual Background of the Case 2. As per F.I.R. informant has alleged that development agreement was entered into between the parties on 25.01.2020 and present accused persons (opposite party no. 2 and 3) being builders agreed to develop the land in the ration of 36%: 64%. It was also agreed that separate charge of distribution of flat/shops will be attached after mutual understanding between the parties, according to their shares. Accordingly, on 17.11.2010 an agreement was entered into between the opposite party no. 3 and one Akash Verma, Director of Pre-Stressed Udyog Limited and a chart was prepared whereby 17 flats were agreed to be given to the informant. The power of attorney was also given by the informant in favour of opposite party no. 3 on 26.06.2010. It is alleged that petitioners, in spite of aforesaid agreement, fraudulently and with malafide intention entered into agreement with Priyanka Agarwal and Hare Krishna Choudhary by depriving the informant from 36 % share, hence, this F.I.R. 3. After rejection of prayer for anticipatory bail by the Court of Sessions the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had filed A.B.A. No. 264 of 2012 before the High Court and they were granted anticipatory bail with following conditions: “I allow this anticipatory bail application and direct the petitioners to surrender in the court below on or before 18th of January 2013 and give a written undertaking in the court below that they will give possession of flat and car parking to the opposite party no. 2 immediately after the completion of building in question as mentioned in Annexure A to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.01.2013. If such writing undertaking is filed in the court below, then the learned court below is directed to enlarge petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 2 immediately after the completion of building in question as mentioned in Annexure A to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.01.2013. If such writing undertaking is filed in the court below, then the learned court below is directed to enlarge petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No. 924 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 3766 of 2011, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.” Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance of impugned order of anticipatory bail, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have filed required undertaking (annexure 3) dated 11.01.2013 before the court below and furnished the bail bond. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact in spite of conditional order of anticipatory bail and undertaking filed before the concerned trial court, terms and conditions were not complied with and not a single flat or parking space were provided to the petitioners/informant, rather they have sold all the 16 flats along with parking area to some other persons. 5. Petitioner is an old man of 84 years and could not be able to file an application earlier due to his illness and bad health. Meanwhile, son of the petitioner also died. Petitioner was compelled to institute a Complaint Case No. 2810 of 2019 before the learned CJM, Dhanbad against the opposite party nos. and 3 for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 120(B) I.P.C. and due to outbreak of Novel Corona 19, he was also affected hence, could not take proper steps. 6. Petitioner is seeking the door of this Hon’ble Court as a last hope and prays to direct opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to comply the terms of undertaking dated 11.01.2013 and also cancel the anticipatory bail of the petitioners earlier granted to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, on account of deliberate violation of the conditions. Arguments on behalf of respondents 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that: (i) Present petition for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 2 and 3, on account of deliberate violation of the conditions. Arguments on behalf of respondents 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that: (i) Present petition for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner has sought cancellation of bail of opposite parties due to non compliance of Development Agreement dated 25.01.2010 entered between Pre-Stressed Udyog Private Limited through its Managing Director i.e. the petitioner and the answering respondents. Petitioner is no longer director of the said company thus has no locus standi to file the instant application. True copy of the Development Agreement and master data of Pre-Stressed Udyog Private Limited are annexed as annexure R(1) and R(2). (ii) The said agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the answering respondents not in individual capacity but in the capacity of the Managing Director of Pre-Stressed Udyog Private Limited which was the owner of the land forming subject matter of the Development Agreement dated 25.01.2010. (iii) The answering respondents have always been in compliance of the Development Agreement dated 25.01.2010 as well as order dated 07.01.2023 passed in ABA No. 264 of 2012 in terms of which written undertaking was given by the answering respondents in the Court below that they will give possession of flat and car parking as mentioned in annexure A to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.01.2013 to the petitioner herein immediately after completion of the building in question. (iv) The answering respondents have complied the undertaking given before the court at the time of furnishing bail bond and handed over the possession of all 16 flats to the petitioner as mentioned which fact has been admitted by the petitioner in the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by adjudicating authority of RERA and possession certification was also granted by the petitioner in respect of one flat i.e. Flat No. 3H third floor block A. It is further submitted that there has been delay in completing the finishing work in some flats due to the obstructive and mala-fide action of the petitioner as a result of which several complaint cases have been lodged with RERA against the petitioner by persons with whom the petitioner entered into agreement of sale with respect to the flats falling in his share. As much as five complaint cases since 2018 to 2021 were lodged against the petitioner of this case. The deliberate obstructive actions in revoking the power of attorney by the petitioner has also adversely affected the completion work of the project. 8. In this regard an award dated 01.08.2013 passed by arbitral tribunal adjudicating the dispute between the parties in following terms: (A) The answering respondents shall hand over the possession of 16 flats in the project Aastha Manmohan Estate to the petitioner in fully completed condition in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in A.B.A. No. 264 of 2012. (B) The cancellation of Development Agreement dated 25.01.2010 by the petitioner was declared illegal and void and held to be not binding on the parties. (C) The Petitioner/informant was directed to restore the irrevocable power of attorney, so that the answering respondents could finish the project in question as soon as possible. True copy of arbitral award annexure (R4). (D) The answering respondents filed an Execution Case No. 117 of 2015 for execution of the arbitral award dated 01.08.2013 and sought restoration of the power of attorney dated 26.06.2010 vide order dated 10.07.2018 and directed the petitioner to restore the power of attorney within 15 days from the date of said order. (E) Though the petitioner has restored power of attorney on 27.07.2018, he had seized to be a Director of M/S Pre-Stressed Udyog Private Limited as informed by him to various authorities vide his letter dated 10.09.2018 annexure (R6). (F) Present Managing Director of Messers Pre-Stressed Udyog Private Limited Sri Mahesh Pradhan has filed Original Suit No. 97 of 2020 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division X, Dhanbad communicating that present petitioner/informant has tendered his resignation from the Board of Directors of the company on 02.05.2017 which has been accepted by the resolution passed at the meeting of Board of Directors of the Company held on 12.05.2017. Accordingly, power of attorney given by the petitioner on behalf of Messers Pre-Stressed Udyog Private Limited as well as sale deed executed to various purchaser are null and void and declaratory review to that effect has been sought in the said suit. This has unsettled the whole position affecting the project. Copy of the plaint of Original Suit No. 97 of 2020 is annexure R(7). 9. This has unsettled the whole position affecting the project. Copy of the plaint of Original Suit No. 97 of 2020 is annexure R(7). 9. It is further submitted that petitioner has again revoked the power of attorney on 06.01.2022 despite court’s order to the contrary on the pretext of purported delay in the completion of the project. Whereas, the delay has been occasioned by the petitioner revoking the power of attorney on various occasion i.e. 23.09.2011 and 06.01.2022 as well as filing frequent cases before different authorities for stay of construction work which is postponing the final issue of completion certificate. A true copy of the petitioners letter dated 06.01.2022 and deed of revocation of power of attorney are annexure R(8) and R(10). 10. It is further submitted that answering respondents have never violated the condition of the undertaking furnished at the time of granting bail hence on that ground alone bail granted to the petitioner cannot be cancelled. The petitioner with a view to harass the answering respondents has also lodged a complaint case no. 2810 of 2019 with false allegations that petitioners have cheated him. In that case answering respondents are on bail. Respondents are co-operating in the trial of this case diligently rather it is the petitioner who is not leading his evidence in the case and dragging the same since more than a decade. There is no allegation against the answering respondents that they are misusing the bail in any manner or influencing the witnesses, hence present criminal miscellaneous petition has no merits and fit to be dismissed. 11. Before imparting judgment on merits, it is proper to note that:-“ Bail is a significant aspect of criminal litigation and is indisputably the most sought after instrument in the court of law. The settled doctrine laid down by the Supreme court of India is that “bail is a rule and jail as an exception.” But the provision of cancellation of bail can sabotage this rule and rob the accused of his liberty, if the plea can establish cogent reasons for cancellation of bail. So when the matter of liberty of an accused is at stake, bail is the only way to get it, until the accused is acquitted. 12. At this juncture, I would also like to discuss the principles governing grant of bail and its cancellation propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in catina of Judgments. So when the matter of liberty of an accused is at stake, bail is the only way to get it, until the accused is acquitted. 12. At this juncture, I would also like to discuss the principles governing grant of bail and its cancellation propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in catina of Judgments. Principles Governing Grant of bail: (i) The nature of accusation weighing in the gravity and severity of the offence. (ii) The severity of punishment (iii) Taking into consideration the position or status of the accused, i.e. whether the accused can exercise influence on the victim and the witnesses or not. (iv) Likelihood of accused to approach or try to approach the victim/witnesses. (v) Likelihood of accused absconding from proceedings. (vi) Possibility of accused to tamper with evidence. (vii) Obstructing or attempting to obstruct the due course of justice. (viii) Possibility of repetition of offence, if left out on bail. (ix) The prima-facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge including frivolity of charge. (x) The different and distinct facts of each case and nature of substantive and corroborative evidence. (xi) It must be born in mind that factors that need to be consider when dealing with the question of cancellation of bail are different from the above listed considerations i.e. for grant of bail. 13. In the case of Dolat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349 , the Supreme Court has held “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail. Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner.” 14. Keeping this very observation in view, the Apex Court has adumbrated the following situations as supervening factors that may justify the cancellation of bail. The points listed below are only illustrative and not exhaustive in nature. Grounds for cancellation/ Rejection of Bail: (i) Interference or attempt to interfere with the due process of meeting ends of Justice. (ii) Evasion or attempt to evade the court proceeding. (iii) Misuse of the concession granted to the accused by not following the terms agreed while on bail. (iv) Possibility of the accused absconding or fleeing to another country. (v) Likelihood of actual misuse of bail (vi) Likelihood of accused tampering with the evidence, obstructing the investigation or threatening witnesses. (ii) Evasion or attempt to evade the court proceeding. (iii) Misuse of the concession granted to the accused by not following the terms agreed while on bail. (iv) Possibility of the accused absconding or fleeing to another country. (v) Likelihood of actual misuse of bail (vi) Likelihood of accused tampering with the evidence, obstructing the investigation or threatening witnesses. (vii) Other supervening circumstances which have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial, allow the accused to retain its freedom by being on bail. 15. Recently in the case of Rohit Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 2079-2080 of 2023 dated 24th July 2023, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances alone and it was observed that while considering the matter dealing with cancellation of bail the court must consider the gravity and nature of the offence. Severity of punishment, the prima facie case against the accused, the position and status of accused, if the allegation leveled against the accused are very serious in nature, his bail may by cancelled even if there is no misuse of bail granted to him. 16. Some of the principles for cancellation of bail are as follows: (i) Whether the court granting bail overlooks influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses specially when there is prima-facie misuse of position and power over the victim. (ii) Whether the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail. (iii) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds. (iv) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice. (v) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitle him for bail and thus cannot be justified. (vi) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case. (vii) Whether the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant materials on record. Conclusion 17. Now coming to the background of the present case as discussed above through submission of rival parties, it is crystal clear that the respondent nos. (vii) Whether the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant materials on record. Conclusion 17. Now coming to the background of the present case as discussed above through submission of rival parties, it is crystal clear that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 were granted anticipatory bail in the year 2013 vide order dated 07.01.2013 passed in A.B.A. No. 264 of 2012 on the basis of their undertaking to hand over flats as agreed after its completion work. So many intervening circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court showing inability of non-compliance of the terms of undertaking on the part of respondents nos. 2 and 3 and also indulgence of informant cum petitioner in putting obstruction time and again in the completion of the construction work. Meanwhile, Director of the Company has also been changed. The circumstances of this case does not correspond with any of the principles for cancellation of bail already granted to the accused persons. In the entire period of ten years there is no complaint against the answering respondents nos. 2 and 3 that they have misused the bail, not co-operating in the trial, influencing the victim or witnesses or fleeing from justice and not cooperating in the smooth trial of the case. The case itself has been instituted for non-compliance of agreement entered into between the parties which has to be proved in accordance with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The delay in trial is also imputable against the petitioner and not against the accused persons. 18. Having regard to overall aspects of the matter brought on record, I find no reasonable ground to interfere with the liberty of the petitioner by way of cancelling their bail. Hence, present petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.