ORDER : (Sameer Jain, J.) The instant bail cancellation application is filed for cancellation of bail granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the accused non-petitioner vide order dated 16.02.2023. The accused non-petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 592/2022 registered at Police Station Sikandra District Dausa for the offence(s) under Sections 376(2)(N), 506 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the victim-petitioner has challenged the impugned order, primarily, on the following grounds: 2.1. That the Court below prematurely granted bail to the accused/non-petitioner even prior to filing of charge sheet; 2.2. That no opportunity of hearing was granted to the victim; 2.3. That for such a heinous offence, no request was made for police custody of the accused/non-petitioner; 2.4. That the accused/non-petitioner used to regularly commit the alleged offence by blackmailing the victim-petitioner through explicit videos of the victim-petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused/non-petitioner submits that the victim in question is a major married lady aged about 21 years who was acquainted and in a close relationship with the accused/non-petitioner, who is also a young man aged about 27 years with no criminal antecedents. It is submitted that investigation in the matter is complete and charge-sheet has been filed, wherein no case is made out under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Learned counsel for the accused/non- petitioner has also placed on record the details of telephonic conversations between the victim and accused and has highlighted that the parties had talked to each other at around midnight, immediately prior to the alleged incident. 4. Heard and considered. 5. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar: (1986) 4 SCC 481 the Hon'ble Apex 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. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It was held 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. 6. The scope of jurisdiction of appellate court in setting aside order granting bail was also discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr: (2020) 2 SCC 118 wherein it was held that the two key factors for interfering with such order are non application of mind on part of Court granting bail or opinion of Court granting bail is not borne out from prima facie view of evidence on record. 7. Considering the arguments advanced by both the sides, considering that the victim and the accused are both major; that from the perusal of record, it prima facie appears that the victim and the accused were involved in a consensual relationship; that no offence under provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 are made out in the charge-sheet; that the accused has been enjoying the benefit of bail since February of 2023; that no ground as mentioned above for cancellation of bail are made out, and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the view that the order impugned does not suffer from non application of mind or that the reasons for granting bail are not borne out from a prima facie view of evidence on record. 8. The present bail cancellation application is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.