ORDER : Gita Gopi, J. 1. The present application has been preferred with prayer for cancellation of bail, which came to be granted by the In-charge 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar on 13.06.2024 in Criminal Misc. Application No.836 of 2024 in connection to FIR No.11216009230231 of 2023 registered with Mansa Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 4(3) and 5(c) of the Gujarat land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020. 2. Ms. Trusha Patel, learned advocate for Advocate Mr. Tattvam K.Patel for the applicant submitted that it is an absolute case of land grabbing, in spite of that the learned judge without assigning any reasons has granted bail to the respondents no.2 to 4, and stated that the ground on which bail came to be granted is the general observation by the Court, while the Court has not delved into the facts of the case. 3. The order impugned shows that the learned Judge has considered the case as of civil nature. The facts of the case, as was urged is that the complainant had received share in the ancestral agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.1749 and 1766 situated at Lodara, which was effected by the revenue entry. The complainant had also received the ancestral land of Survey No.1787, the effect of which has been reflected in the revenue entry no.5687. The complainant has stated that he has purchased agricultural land being Survey No.1788 and after receiving of possession of the said land he had executed a deed, which has been entered in the revenue record no.6998. 3.1 It is the case of the complainant that though the agriculture land owned by him and his name has been mentioned in the revenue record in the form of 7/12 abstract, the accused have taken illegal possession of the said agriculture land and have received income from the seasonal crop. The case, as was urged by the complainant, that it was grabbing of the agriculture land. 4. The record suggests that Regular Civil Suit No.7 of 2023 was filed by the present applicant and an order has been passed below Exh.5 dated 25.11.2023 by the Principal Civil Judge, Mansa, Gandhinagar, Dist. Gandhinagar, and the interim injunction application came to be allowed, and necessary consecutive order restraining the defendants and his man, agents and servants etc. from entering or creating any hindrance in the possession of the plaintiff, was passed. 5. Gandhinagar, and the interim injunction application came to be allowed, and necessary consecutive order restraining the defendants and his man, agents and servants etc. from entering or creating any hindrance in the possession of the plaintiff, was passed. 5. The necessary civil recourse has been taken by the complainant. The order of protecting the land has been passed. The complainant can further take the assistance of the Court for direction of police protection, if at all, he feels that he would not be allowed to enter into the land, or further can go for the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Bail once granted cannot be mechanically cancelled unless any exceptional circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court. 6. In case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-4 held as under :- “4. Rejection of bail in a nonbailable 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.” 6.1 Thus in the case of Dolat Ram (supra), it has been held that 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. In the case of X Vs. State of Telangana, reported in 2018 (16) SCC 511 , the Apex Court has held that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case based on a supervening event has been made out. It has been observed that second FIR is not a supervening circumstance of such a nature, as would warrant the cancellation of bail, which was granted by the High Court. 6.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118 , held two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in a nonbailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, there is likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure a fair trial of the case. Therefore, to ensure a fair trial, all considerations are explored while granting bail. Thus, when the question is raised on the power to cancel bail, the same has to be exercised with great care and circumspection. Cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail. 6.3 This Court would also like to refer to the decision in the case of Merubhai Ramabhai Khodiyatar (Hun) Rabari v. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 (2) G.L.R. 1175 . Cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail. 6.3 This Court would also like to refer to the decision in the case of Merubhai Ramabhai Khodiyatar (Hun) Rabari v. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 (2) G.L.R. 1175 . In Paragraph 16.1, it was held as under :- “The grounds for cancellation of bail and grounds of rejection of bail are two different circumstances and hence the consideration of the court on the issue also becomes different, while hearing the application for cancellation of bail, the court has to be more rigid, as it has to examine not only the possibility of violation, but also the possible consequences. The power of cancellation of bail must be exercised with care and circumspection keeping in mind the urgent and overwhelming circumstances. The bail already granted should not be cancelled on a routine manner, as it jeopardizes the personal liberty of the person. In the present case, the respondent - State has not been able to show any supervening circumstances, which would reflect that the liberty, granted to the accused, was misused, and no longer conducive to a fair trial.” 7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to entertain this application, since the civil dispute is pending between the parties. No other section has been invoked against the accused except the provision of Land Grabbing Act, and the right is to be decided by the Civil Court of the parties concerned. 8. In the result, the application stands rejected.