ORDER : Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for Respondent No.2- State and learned Advocate, Mr. Dipak Patel, waives for Respondent No.1-original accused. 1. By way of this application, filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief, ‘the Code’), the applicant-first informant seeks to assail the order dated 08.03.2022, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CR.M.A. No. 21442 of 2021, granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No.1-accused in connection with the offence registered with the Adalaj Police Station, District: Gandhinagar, being CR No. 11216001210714 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 20(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4(3) and 5 of the Gujarat Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2020. 2. Learned Advocate, Mr. Ravani, appearing for the applicant submitted that Respondent No.2 has committed the breach of condition as well as the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 08.03.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 21442 of 2021, by which Respondent No.1 is granted anticipatory bail. It was submitted that Respondent No.1 has filed an undertaking before this Court, stating therein, that he is ready and willing to reverse the transaction, which is alleged in the FIR. It was further submitted that the allegations of forging documents are made against Respondent No.1, who got executed the sale deed in question, after preparing a false Pedhinama / Pedigree. It was submitted that Respondent No.1 has played main role in the commission of the alleged offence and since, Respondent No.1 committed the breach of the conditions of bail granted by this Court, his bail may be canceled. Learned Advocate pressed into service, the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.09.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application (For Cancellation of Bail) No. 7971 of 2016, to submit that in the identical case of breach of condition, imposed while granting bail, the bail granted to the concerned accused persons was canceled. Reliance is also placed on the order. 2.1 Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of ‘Deepak Yadav Vs. Reliance is also placed on the order. 2.1 Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of ‘Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Another’, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562, to submit that cancellation of bail is not limited to supervening circumstances and the Courts can cancel the bail, where, the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record, overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses, especially, when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim, where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail, Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds, where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice, where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which dis-entitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified and when the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case. 2.2 It was submitted that the forging of the documents is evident from the material available on the record vide Pages- 97-117, which is totally ignored by the concerned Court, while granting bail. Therefore, the granting of bail, prima facie, appears to be against the settled principles of law, enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It was, therefore, prayed that this application be allowed. 3. Learned APP adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant and prayed that the appropriate orders may be passed in the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Dipak Patel, appearing for respondent No.1-accused supported the impugned order by submitting that in Paragraph-4 of the order dated 08.03.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 21442 of 2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has recorded that Respondent No.1 shall file an undertaking before this Court and before the concerned IO, within the period of two weeks, to the effect that he shall not claim any right, title or interest in the land in question. Application No. 21442 of 2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has recorded that Respondent No.1 shall file an undertaking before this Court and before the concerned IO, within the period of two weeks, to the effect that he shall not claim any right, title or interest in the land in question. It was submitted that Respondent No.1 has already filed such undertaking, which is produced as Annexure-C to this petition. 4.1 It was, further, submitted that in Paragraph-4 of the order dated 08.03.2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court further recorded the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Respondent No.1 intends to reverse the transaction in question. Thus, as such no condition was imposed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court to get the alleged transaction reversed. It was submitted that there is difference between filing an undertaking and declaring an intention. It was submitted that the Respondent No.1 has not breached any of the conditions of the bail granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. It was submitted that the petitioner wants to ensure that the sword of Damocles is kept hanging on the head of Respondent No.1 and hence, this application may be rejected. 4.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Ravani, in rejoinder referred to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.05.2023 in Criminal Misc. Application (For Vacating Interim Relief) No. 1 of 2023 in Special Criminal Application No. 2408 of 2022 to submit that the interim relief granted qua the offences punishable under the Land Grabbing Act is modified by the Division Bench and the police is permitted to continue the investigation qua the same. It was, thus, submitted that as the investigation is also going on, this application may be allowed. 5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the impugned order, what appears is that cancellation of bail is sought on the ground that Respondent No.1 did not get the transaction in question reversed, which according to the petitioner is breach of one of the conditions of the order granting bail. In view of the same, here it would be relevant to refer to Paragraph-4 of the order dated 08.03.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 21442 of 2022, which reads thus; “4. In view of the same, here it would be relevant to refer to Paragraph-4 of the order dated 08.03.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 21442 of 2022, which reads thus; “4. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, it appears that the applicant herein has purchased the land by way of registered sale deed by paying Rs.1,45,00,000/- as consideration towards the transaction. Learned advocate, on instructions, states that the applicant herein will not claim any right, title or interest in the alleged land, for which, the applicant will file undertaking before this court as well as before the IO concerned within 2 weeks from today. The learned advocate would submits that the applicant intends to reverse the transaction, however, the seller accused no. 1 is not cooperating in the execution of necessary deed by remaining present before the Registrar concerned. The case is based on documentary evidence. There is no any past antecedent of like nature. In this background, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not found to be essential for the purpose of investigating.” 5.1 What appears from the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court is that Respondent No.2 shall file an undertaking, within the period of two weeks, to the effect that he shall not claim any right, title or interest qua the land in question. It appears that, thereafter, the Coordinate Bench recorded the submission of the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 that Respondent No.2 intends to reverse the alleged transaction. Thus, it is clear that the intention shown and the undertaking filed by Respondent No.2 are two different things and that the Coordinate Bench never imposed condition on Respondent No.2 to reverse the transaction in question, but, it merely recorded the submission of the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. It is neither the case of the petitioner nor it is argued that Respondent No.2 has not filed any undertaking. In fact, the undertaking filed by Respondent No.2 is already produced as Annexure-C to this petition. 5.2 The powers of cancellation of bail are to be exercised only in cases, where overwhelming material or grounds are made out for so doing and the bail granted by the competent Courts cannot be canceled at the whims and caprices of the first informant. 5.2 The powers of cancellation of bail are to be exercised only in cases, where overwhelming material or grounds are made out for so doing and the bail granted by the competent Courts cannot be canceled at the whims and caprices of the first informant. In short, the procedure of cancellation of bail cannot be allowed to be made a tool in the hands of the first informants, so as to get the desired results. 5.3 In Paragraphs-19 and 20 in the case of ‘Bhuri Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh’, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under; “19. It remains trite that normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted. Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under Section 439(2)CrPC. 20. It had not been the case of the prosecution that the appellant had misused the liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on her. We are impelled to observe that power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. In other words, the powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused and in fact, in a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. In the matter of the present nature, in our view, over-expansion of the issue was not required only for one reason that a particular factor was not stated by the Trial Court in its order granting bail.” 5.4 It is to be noted that the criteria for rejection of bail and cancellation of bail are altogether different. To cancel the bail already granted by a competent Court, cogent and overwhelming reasons are required to be made out. In the present case, they are totally missing. 5.5 Though, learned Advocate, Mr. To cancel the bail already granted by a competent Court, cogent and overwhelming reasons are required to be made out. In the present case, they are totally missing. 5.5 Though, learned Advocate, Mr. Ravani, argued, while referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Deepak Yadav’ (Supra), that the Coordinate Bench of this Court did not exercise the discretion in judicious manner and the bail is granted without taking into consideration the material available on record, he failed to point out, what material was overlooked by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting bail. In that view of the matter, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Deepak Yadav’ (Supra) will not help the petitioner. Further, the decision of this Court dated 25.09.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application (For Cancellation of Bail) No. 7971 of 2016, relied on by learned Advocate, Mr. Ravani, will also not help the petitioner, as the facts of that case different than the facts of the case on hand. 6. Thus, the petitioner has failed to make out a case, which permits this Court to interfere with the impugned order granting bail to the accused. No reasons or supervening circumstances or grounds are made out warranting interference with the order of granting bail. 7. In the result, present petitions fail and stands DISMISSED. Rule is discharged.