ORDER : JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J. Petitioner/de facto complainant has preferred this criminal petition seeking to cancel the bail granted to the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1, vide order dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1583 of 2024 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Crime No.443 of 2021 of P.S. Rayadurgam. 2. Heard Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Uma Devi Nama, counsel for petitioner/ de facto complainant and Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C.Sunil Anand, counsel for respondent No.2/accused No.1 and perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein, who has worked as President of “Chitrapuri Sadhana Samithi”, has lodged a complaint with the Rayadurgam Police stating that the State Government has allotted an extent of Acs.67.16 Guntas of land in Sy.No.246/1 of Manikonda Jagir to ‘Telugu Cine Workers Co-operative Housing Society Limited’ at Rs.40/- per square yard, for allotment to the cine workers who are not having any land or houses. It is alleged in the complaint that due to hike in prices of land in the area, the 2 nd respondent herein, being the Secretary of the Union, admitted 9153 members into the Society against the available plots of 4213, by creating fake ID cards and by forging the signatures of the Committee of IAS Officers appointed for allotment of plots. Thus, it is alleged that the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has allotted plots to the non-eligible persons and also got transferred amounts from the accounts of the Society to the personal accounts of the Members of the Society and thereby misappropriated crores of rupees. 4. Basing on the above complaint, Crime No.443 of 2021 was registered against the 2 nd respondent herein and others for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of IPC. The 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.1583 of 2024 before the trial Court, wherein, he has questioned the registration of crime against him and also sought for grant of bail. The 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.1583 of 2024 before the trial Court, wherein, he has questioned the registration of crime against him and also sought for grant of bail. The main ground urged for grant of bail was that though the crime was registered in the year 2021, he was arrested only on 21.05.2024 i.e. after lapse of three years and that if any allegations are there against the Executive Committee Members of the Society, the remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, but the complainant has approached the Police and the Police, without issuing notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., have arrested the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1. 5. The prosecution has opposed the said application contending that if accused No.1 is released on bail, he may tamper the evidence and that he may abscond, as the other accused in the crime were also absconding. 6. On considering the rival contentions of the parties, ultimately, the trial Court has allowed the above application by order, dated 24.06.2024 granting bail to the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1, however, by imposing certain conditions. Condition No.(ii), which is alleged to have been violated, reads as under: “The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the concerned Court.” 7. The grounds urged for cancellation of bail are that the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has violated the above condition by moving away from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission by visiting Vijayawada on 26.06.2024, by conducting a press meet on 27.06.2024 threatening the members who have filed cases against the Managing Committee, stating that they will not get their houses registered in their favour, and further, he has also participated in the meeting held in connection with inauguration of the office of “Telugu Film and Digital Industry Employees’ Federation”, at Gandhinagar of Vijayawada on 28.06.2024. 8. The 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has opposed this application for cancellation of bail by filing counter affidavit. 8. The 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has opposed this application for cancellation of bail by filing counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, while stating the facts of the case, it is admitted that he went to Vijayawada on 26.06.2024 and participated in the meeting of “Telugu Film and Digital Industry Employees’ Federation”, at Gandhinagar on 28.06.2024, however, it is contended that the same was not done wantedly but he went to Vijayawada to see his ailing father, who had undergone amputation of his leg in a hospital there. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that when the 2 nd respondent/ accused No.1 was in Vijayawada, some of the Cine Field Dignitaries have brought to his notice that as a President of the “Telugu Film Employees’ Federation”, his presence at the meeting with the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh would be beneficial to the Film Industry, and hence, obliging them, he was attended the meeting on 28.06.2024 and returned to Hyderabad on the same day and appeared before the Station House Officer concerned on the next day at Hyderabad. It is pleaded that the said act of going to Vijayawada was not intentional nor deliberate but was only on account of the urgency to see his ailing/recovering father in the hospital at Vijayawada. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1, in support of his case, has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra and another , [1999 SCC OnLine SC 205] , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extracted the following paragraph from its earlier judgment in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana , [ (1995) 1 SCC 349 ] , as under: “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 of 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. 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. 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.” Thus, it is contended that in the present case, as there are no overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of bail already granted, the learned Senior Counsel for 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition. 10. The learned Senior Counsel for 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has also relied on another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Myakala Dharmarajam and others v. State of Telangana and another , [2020 CRI.L.J. 1457] , in support of his contention that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice or if the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused. 11. Though the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has taken various grounds questioning the validity of registration of crime against him including that of the remedy to the de facto complainant to approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies against the alleged irregularities, this Court need not go into the validity of the registration of crime or the validity of the order granting bail. The short question that needs to be gone into in this petition is, whether there is any violation of the conditions imposed by the trial Court while granting bail, and if so, whether such violation is sufficient to cancel the bail granted to the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1. 12. The short question that needs to be gone into in this petition is, whether there is any violation of the conditions imposed by the trial Court while granting bail, and if so, whether such violation is sufficient to cancel the bail granted to the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1. 12. The admitted case of even the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 is that the trial Court has granted him bail on 24.06.2024 and he was released on 26.06.2024. After his release from jail, he received information that his father who had undergone amputation of his leg, was in serious condition and admitted to hospital with deteriorating health, and therefore, he had to rush to Vijayawada to see his father. The further averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 in paragraph No.11 disclose that on being approached by the dignitaries of Cine Field, he had to attend a meeting relating to their Society. Thus, while admitting his visiting Vijayawada without permission of the Court, the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has tried to justify his action by stating that he had to see his ailing father at a private hospital at Vijayawada. 13. On this, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner/de facto complainant took an objection stating that the ailment of the father of the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 was not that much serious that he had no time to approach the trial Court seeking permission to leave its territorial jurisdiction. He further contended that even if it is assumed that the ailment of the father of the petitioner was that much serious to be taken care of, the subsequent conduct of the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 falsifies the ground taken by him for travelling to Vijayawada, as he had attended the meeting of “Telugu Film and Digital Industry Employees’ Federation” on the request made by some persons of the Cine field. Thus, he contends that on the pretext of attending his ailing father, which is also not that much serious illness, the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has deliberately violated condition No.(ii) imposed by the trial Court. The said condition was imposed by the trial Court to prevent the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 from interfering with the affairs of the Society in any manner, but the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has displayed his disrespect to the orders of Court by conducting/attending the meeting of the Society. 14. The said condition was imposed by the trial Court to prevent the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 from interfering with the affairs of the Society in any manner, but the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has displayed his disrespect to the orders of Court by conducting/attending the meeting of the Society. 14. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram’s case (2 supra) relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1, 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. This judgment is not applicable to the case of the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1, but it rather supports the case of the petitioner, as there exists supervening circumstance rendering it no longer conducive to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail, as in this case, in spite of there being condition imposed by the trial Court directing the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 not to leave its local limits without permission, he has violated the same by going to Vijayawada on the very same day of his release from jail i.e. 26.06.2024. Coming to the other judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 in Myakala Dharmarajam’s case (3 supra), it also does not support his case, as there is no dispute with regard to the law laid down in the said judgment that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice or if the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused. But, in the case on hand, we are not testing the validity or otherwise of the order granting bail and we are only dealing with the violation of the condition imposed while granting bail. The ground stated by the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 for going to Vijayawada that it was only to see his ailing father, cannot be believed in view of his subsequent act of participating in a meeting. The ground stated by the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 for going to Vijayawada that it was only to see his ailing father, cannot be believed in view of his subsequent act of participating in a meeting. It would have been a different situation if the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 had limited his journey to Vijayawada only to see his ailing father without indulging in any other activities. Even otherwise, the ailment of the father of 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 is of not that much serious that he had no time to approach the trial Court seeking permission. Without attempting to get permission from the trial Court, the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 has gone out of its territorial jurisdiction on the very same day of his release from jail and he went to the further extent of participating in the meeting of the Telugu Film Employees’ Federation. This attitude of the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 clearly demonstrates his disrespect to the order of the trial Court. No doubt, bail once granted cannot be cancelled without substantial grounds for such cancellation, but at the same time, it cannot be tolerated when the conditions imposed by the Court while granting such bail are violated. Courts will impose conditions while granting bail taking into consideration the seriousness of the offences alleged. If the accused is aggrieved of any of the conditions imposed while granting bail to him, he can seek for relaxation of such conditions, but he cannot violate the same. The present case is a classic example of deliberate violation of the orders of Court. 15. The mere mentioning of the words “Medical Emergency” is not sufficient but there must be real emergency circumstance that does not give a person sufficient time to obtain permission from the Court. In this case, even according to the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1, as stated in the counter affidavit itself, he went to Vijayawada to see his ailing/recovering father whose leg was amputated. The leg was already amputated and his father was “recovering”. It, in no way, can be termed as a “Medical Emergency”. In this case, even according to the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1, as stated in the counter affidavit itself, he went to Vijayawada to see his ailing/recovering father whose leg was amputated. The leg was already amputated and his father was “recovering”. It, in no way, can be termed as a “Medical Emergency”. It is not the case where his father was effected with severe heart stroke requiring his urgent presence there to see him before his death or it is not even a case where his condition was so serious that a decision has to be taken whether his leg is to be amputated in order to save his life, so that the 2 nd respondent has to rush there to discuss with the doctors. There is not at all “Medical Emergency” in this case, as the leg was already amputated and the father of 2 nd respondent was recovering normally. Courts will always strive to protect the personal liberty of citizens. That’s why even there exist certain circumstances against granting bail, still, bails will be granted by imposing certain conditions, hoping that those conditions would allow the accused to move with some freedom and at the same time, it would not prejudice the case of the prosecution. This is to strike balance between the personal liberty of accused and the grievance of the complainant. 16. While admitting to have flouted the bail condition by the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 by travelling to Vijayawada and participating in some meeting there, learned Senior Counsel has contended that the trial court did not impose any condition preventing 2 nd respondent from participating in such meeting and that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner with such act of 2 nd respondent. This Court is unable to understand as to how the trial Court expect that the 2 nd respondent would participate in such meeting at Vijayawada when there was a condition not to leave its territorial jurisdiction itself. Further, what more prejudice is to be caused to the petitioner when the 2 nd respondent has chaired the meeting against the interests of many members, holding all the records in his custody. If such deliberate violation of Court orders is not curtailed, there will not be any sanctity to the Court orders. It is a clear misuse of the liberty granted by the Court. If such deliberate violation of Court orders is not curtailed, there will not be any sanctity to the Court orders. It is a clear misuse of the liberty granted by the Court. Being not able to content with the liberty granted by the trial Court, the 2 nd respondent has stretched his legs beyond its territorial jurisdiction, on what can be termed as, “an unreasonable ground. If the 2 nd respondent is really concerned about the ailment of his father, he should have sat with him in the hospital itself worrying about his health, but should not have participated in the meeting, by moving away from the hospital. This shows the real intention behind his going to Vijayawada. 17. As discussed above, the overall conduct of the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 demonstrates his disrespect to the orders of the trial Court imposing conditions while releasing him on bail. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to cancel the bail granted to the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1. 18. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed cancelling the bail granted to the 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 vide order, dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1583 of 2024 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar in Crime No.443 of 2021 of P.S. Rayadurgam. The 2 nd respondent/accused No.1 shall surrender before the trial Court by or before 04.10.2024, and if he fails to surrender, the trial Court shall take steps in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.