JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 11.9.2015 passed by the learned 10th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bardoli in Criminal Misc. Application No.24 of 2015, whereby the learned Session Judge has granted regular bail to the respondent – original accused. 2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Bharda for learned advocate Mr. Daiya for the first informant and learned APP. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioners after referring to the order of the learned Session Judge would submit that the respondent accused did not abide by the undertaking given by the earned advocate for the petitioners. He pressed into service page 32 to say in his argument that it is noted by the learned trial Court that the respondent herein is ready and willing to execute the sale deed as and when the land in question is converted into NA. However, up til now, no sale deed is executed, thereby condition of bail is breached. He has taken this Court through various orders to submit that the at no point of time, the respondent accused was available and therefore, the matter was pending since 2016. He would further submit that that the learned trial Court has not noted any antecedents of the respondent accused, though as many as 8 antecedents are registered against the respondent accused including the present one. He would further submit that even in the trial, the respondent accused was not available and therefore, the trial could not commence. Thus, he submits to allow this petition and to cancel the bail granted to the respondent accused. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the first informant would submit that the respondent accused is participating in the trial and the trial is going on. He would further submit that maximum punishment, which can be entailed in the present offence, is less than seven years. Therefore, the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar v/s. State of Bihar [(2003 (8) SCC 273] reiterated in the case of Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2023 INSC 660 and pursuant to which, Circular No.C.2703/81 issued by this Court is to be followed by the investigating officer. Thus, he submits to dismiss the petition. 5. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2023 INSC 660 and pursuant to which, Circular No.C.2703/81 issued by this Court is to be followed by the investigating officer. Thus, he submits to dismiss the petition. 5. Joining the hands with learned advocate for the first informant, learned APP would submit to pass necessary orders. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, at the outset, it is to be noted that in a case where the offence punishable u/s 406 and 420 of the IPC was alleged, the learned trial Court has granted bail only after filing of the charge sheet. The accused was behind the bar prior to filing of the charge sheet for two months. The investigation was completed and all the records were lying with the investigating officer and then with the learned trial Court. The proceedings of Criminal Case No.4550 of 2017 is going on. Therefore, this Court refrained itself from passing any further order on merits as it would prejudice the case of either party. But, the fact remains that it was a case u/s 406 and 420 of the IPC and the maximum punishment, which can be entailed in the present offence, is less than seven years. 7. The next contention raised by Learned advocate for the petitioners is that that the accused has given undertaking to execute the sale deed after the land is converted into NA. Indeed, the same was the argument of learned advocate for the accused and recorded in para 32, but that is not forming part of the final order on page 37. So, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Court has granted bail only on the condition of executing the sale deed. 8. As far as third contention that the accused did not remain present before the learned trial Court is concerned, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is providing sufficient remedy either to the first informant or to the learned trial Court to secure the presence of the accused. So, on all three counts, present petition requires only fate of dismissal. 9. As far as third contention that the accused did not remain present before the learned trial Court is concerned, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is providing sufficient remedy either to the first informant or to the learned trial Court to secure the presence of the accused. So, on all three counts, present petition requires only fate of dismissal. 9. In Bhagwan Singh vs. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak reported in 2023 INSC 7613, this Court after considering judgment in case of Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 ; Kashmira Singh vs. Duman Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 693 and X vs. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511 , held as follows: '13. It is also required to be borne in mind that when a prayer is made for the cancellation of grant of bail cogent and overwhelming circumstances must be present and bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial. This proposition draws support from the Judgment of this Court in Daulat Ram and others v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 , Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693 and xxx v. State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511 .' 10. Before parting with the order, I may also refer the observations made in the recent decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kekhriesatuo Tep and others Vs. National Investigating Agency reported in (2023) 6 SCC 58 . The relevant observation made in para 20 reads as under:- “20. An interference by an Appellate Court and particularly in a matter when liberty granted to a citizen was being taken away would be warranted only in the event the view taken by the Trial Court was either perverse or impossible. On this limited ground, we find that the appeals deserve to be allowed.” 11. In Bhagirathsinh S/O Mahipat Singh ... vs State Of Gujarat [ AIR 1984 SC 372 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. In paragraph 8 it has been observed thus: “8. In Bhagirathsinh S/O Mahipat Singh ... vs State Of Gujarat [ AIR 1984 SC 372 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. In paragraph 8 it has been observed thus: “8. In our opinion, the learned Judge appears to have misdirected himself while examining the question of directing cancellation of bail by interfering with a discreationary order made by the learned Sessions Judge. One could have appreciated the anxiety of the learned Judge of the High Court that in the circumstances found by him that the victim attacked was a social and political worker and therefore the accused should not be granted bail but we fail to appreciate how that circumstance should be considered so overriding as to permit interference with a discretionary order of the learned Sessions Judge granting bail. The High Court completely overlooked the fact that it was not for it to decide whether the bail should be granted but the application before it was for cancellation of the bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. And the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. The order made by the High Court is conspicuous by its silence on these two relevant considerations. It is for these reasons that we consider in the interest of justice a compelling necessity to interfere with the order made by the High Court.” 12. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed. Rule discharged.