JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Applicant Amit Kumar Saini is in judicial custody in FIR No. 38 of 2021, under Section 307, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Kaliyar Sharif, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This is third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application allowed on the ground of parity on 28.01.2022 but it was rejected on 08.07.2022 in BAC No. 04.2022. The second bail application was rejected on merits on 24.03.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, the applicant had already been granted bail by this Court on 28.01.2022 as all the other co-accused had already been granted bail. But, it is argued that subsequently, on 08.07.2022, in BAC No. 04 of 2022, the bail of the applicant was cancelled. It is argued that thereafter, the informant has already been examined. The only evidence against the applicant is that it is he who planned to get the injured assaulted. It is argued that actual assaulters have already been granted bail. Reference has been made to the statement of PW1 Sandeep Kumar Saini, who is the informant. 5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the applicant has not complied with the direction of the Court earlier when his bail was cancelled. He did not surrender to custody. Coercive processes were issued against him. It is only thereafter, he surrendered before the Court. It is argued that the family members of the applicant are still causing harm to the family of the informant. There have been reports lodged against them. Learned counsel also submits that State also apprehends that if the applicant is released on bail, he may cause harm. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that as per instruction, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may cause harm. 7. The role assigned to the applicant is that it is he, who was instrumental in attacking the injured. The real assaulters have admittedly been granted bail. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that as per instruction, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may cause harm. 7. The role assigned to the applicant is that it is he, who was instrumental in attacking the injured. The real assaulters have admittedly been granted bail. The bail of the applicant was cancelled on 08.07.2022, when the Court observed as follows:- “From the perusal of the remand (Paper No.27), it is clear that the co-accused Amit Kumar Saini was arrested on 11.01.2022 in the present FIR and was produced before the Remand Magistrate (Additional CJM) Roorkee, District Haridwar, on the very same day, which shows that in the month of January, 2021, he was not in judicial custody in the present matter; he was arrested on 11.01.2022. The applicant-informant has submitted an application to the concerned police station, on 03.02.2022, regarding the threat given by the accused-respondent no.2, which shows that the accused-respondent no.2 has misused the liberty granted to him. In these circumstances, the bail cancellation application is liable to be allowed, accordingly, allowed and the order dated 28.01.2022 is, hereby, cancelled. The concerned Court will take appropriate steps against the accused-respondent no.2.” 8. The bail of the applicant was rejected on two grounds as evident from above narration, namely; (i) that the date of custody was wrongly told to the Court and; (ii) He threatened the informant. 9. The informant has already been examined as PW1. He has not stated in his evidence that he had ever been threatened by the applicant. 10. It is true that after cancellation of his bail, the applicant did not surrender to custody and coercive steps were taken against him. 11. Having considered that one of the grounds of cancellation of bail i.e. related to threats to the informant, has not been told by the informant in his evidence and the fact that the informant is examined and also keeping in view the role of the applicant as well as the fact that the co-accused, who were actual assaulter have been granted bail, this Court is of the view that there are changed circumstances, which entitles the applicant to bail. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall individually or through any of his friends, relatives not contact the informant or his family members either personally, electronically or by any other mode. (ii) He shall not influence any witness, in any manner, whatsoever.