JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby the High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the first respondent herein and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants herein. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows :

3. The first appellant herein was married to the daughter of the first respondent on 17.4.2000. Second appellant is the father of the first appellant. Both are residents of Bombay. The said marriage lasted hardly for 14 days and the estranged wife Dimple Jain started living separately. While the first appellant being a doctor was stationed in Bombay, after separation his wife, came to Chennai to her parents house and started living there.

4. The relationship between the two parties deteriorated with the first appellant filing a case against the first respondent alleging an offence under Section 307 IPC on 22.8.2001 at Tirunelveli. Immediately thereafter on 11.9.2001 Dimple Jain left for London for further studies and started residing there.

5. On 13.11.2002 the first appellant filed a divorce petition which is now pending. A month later i.e. on 13.12.2002 the first respondent herein filed a complaint in Chennai alleging offences under section 498A IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act even though at that point of time his daughter Dimple Jain was in London. On coming to know of the said complaint the appellants moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which came to be allowed by an order made by the said court on 3.2.2003. One of the terms and conditions of the grant of said anticipatory bail was that the first appellant Raj Kumar Jain should stay at Chennai and report to the Police at C-5. All Woman Police Station, Kothawalchawady, Chennai, everyday at 10 a.m. barring Sundays for a week, and other petitioners including the second appellant herein should report to the said Police as and when required.

6. It is stated pursuant to the said order, the appellants herein and other persons who sought the anticipatory bail surrendered before the concerned court and obtained bail as directed by the High Court. It is also contended by the appellants that as required in the said order granting bail by the High Court, the appellants herein reported to the Police everyday between 12.2.2002 and 18.2.2002.

7. Since it was the direction of the High Court that the first appellant should remain in Chennai for a week, per force, he had to be at Chennai during this period, therefore, his father, the 2nd appellant also stayed in Chennai. It is further alleged that on 17.2.2003 an application for cancellation for bail was filed under section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court, alleging that the appellants herein had gone to the house of one Harish Bhuva on 15.2.2003 and abused and threatened the said period not to give evidence in the case in which he happened to be a witness. On this application for cancellation of bail, the High Court, accepting the allegations made by the first respondent, by the impugned order, cancelled the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the two appellants. As stated above, it is against the said order the appellants have preferred this appeal. The High Court in the impugned order while cancelling the anticipatory bail observed thus :

"After careful consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case, where the anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondents 1 and 2 has to be cancelled. It is contended by the learned counsel for State that a complaint was lodged by one of the witnesses stating that these respondents 1 and 2 threatened him on 17.2.2003 not to depose against them and it is also further pertinent to note that they have not cooperated with the respondent No. 3/police to inve