JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 17.03.2023 passed in Vigilance Case No. 27 of 2017, corresponding to Special Case No. 30 of 1989, whereby learned Special Judge, ACB, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum has been pleased to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner and further has been pleased to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, ACB, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum, 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been granted regular bail on surrender by order dated 18.11.1996. He submits that the matter went upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s). 3409-3410/2011 and by order dated 08.04.2011 interim order was provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that observation was there by order dated 06.08.2013 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if any evidence come during the trial against the petitioner the trial court is at liberty to call upon the petitioner to face the trial. He further submits that in absence of any further development, the learned court has cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner considering the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299 . He further submits that this aspect of the matter has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the case of “Fazalullah Khan Vs. M. Akbar Contractor (D) By LRS. & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1513 that if any stay is granted by the Hon’ble Supreme the said judement in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd (supra) will not apply. On these grounds he submits that cancellation order is bad in law. 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the learned court has rightly cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner and called upon the petitioner inspite of that petitioner is not appearing. 5. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the learned court has rightly cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner and called upon the petitioner inspite of that petitioner is not appearing. 5. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. The entire ordersheets annexed with the petition suggests that till 08.02.2021 case was being adjourned in anticipation of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by order dated 22.02.2021 the learned court has vacated the interim stay in view of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd (supra) and the further orders suggest that the prosecution has not led any evidence except one. What are the materials against the petitioner has not been disclosed in the order of cancellation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Fazalullah Khan” (supra) has held that when the order has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of interim protection the said judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd (supra) will not apply. Further in order dated 06.08.2013 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s). 3409-3410/2011 the following order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: - “Leave granted. Interim stay granted on 08.04.2011 shall operate until further orders. However, the prosecution/trial of the accused persons which is going on in Special Case No. 30 of 89 before the Special Judge, Ranchi shall continue with liberty to the respondent-State of Jharkhand to adduce evidence against all the accused persons, including the appellants herein regarding the criminal conspiracy/vicarious liability of the appellants in alleged theft of electricity resulting into heavy loss to the Bihar State Electricity Board, now merged in Jharkhand State Electricity Board. In case the complainant at any stage of the trial is able to adduce evidence to the effect that the appellants were involved in criminal conspiracy of the theft of electricity in any manner or in case they find any material against the appellants, the order of stay granted by this Court shall not come in their way for summoning the appellants in order to stand the trial.” 6. There is no doubt that in view of further observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court there was no hitch to call upon the petitioner to face trial subject to any cogent evidence is found against the petitioner. There is no doubt that in view of further observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court there was no hitch to call upon the petitioner to face trial subject to any cogent evidence is found against the petitioner. In the case in hand, till date nothing has been disclosed what materials have against the petitioner to call upon him to face trial. In that view of the matter order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been rightly appreciated by the learned court and only on the basis of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd (supra) the stay has been vacated by order dated 22.02.2021 and by order dated 17.03.2023 bail bond was cancelled. It appears that on wrong notion that order has been passed. Two orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed here-in-above are applicable in the case of the petitioner. Further bail is a rule and cancellation is exception. Once the bail is granted cancellation order is required to be passed on the very cogent reason which is lacking in the case in hand. 7. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis order dated 17.03.2023 passed in Vigilance Case No. 27 of 2017, corresponding to Special Case No. 30 of 1989, whereby learned Special Judge, ACB, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum has been pleased to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, ACB, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum is set aside. The petitioner shall be allowed to remain on bail on the same bail bond which was cancelled by the learned court. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything against the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is open to the learned trial court to proceed in accordance with law taking into account the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s). 3409- 3410/2011. 9. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of.