IMPORTANT POINT
Cancellation of baa can be Justified only when there are supervening circumstances after the grant of bail which could Justify cancellation of bail.

ORDER

Vaman. Rao, J. - This petition under Section 482. Cr. P.C. seeks quashing of the orders of the learned Sessions Judge. Nalgonda dated 21-22000 passed in Cri. M.P. No. 201 of 2000 (Common order passed alongwith Cri. M.P. Nos. 194 of 2000. 232 of 2000 and 238 of 2000) in Cr. No. 12 of 2000 of P.S. Huzurnagar under which the bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled.

2. The petitioner herein is accused of offences under Sections 409. 420. 419. 468. 471 read with Section 34. I.P.C. alongwith other accused in the First Information Report recorded as Cr. No. 12 of 2000 at Huzurnagar Police Station. The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Huzurnagar and was directed to be released on bail by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 7-22000 in Cr. No. 12 of 2000.

3. On behalf of the prosecution the said Cri. M.P. No. 201 of2000was filed for canceling the bail granted to the petitioner. The cancellation of the bail was sought for the following reasons:

(1) that the case in which the petitioner was ,involved related to cheating of a minor out of the benefits of compensation awarded by the Revenue authorities for the death of adoptive father of the said minor.

(2) that it was a case of impersonation in collision with the Public servants in Mandal Revenue Office in as much as a person was made to impersonate for the real claimant to receive the benefit.

(3) that the petitioner was a practising advocate and that it was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that the petitioner was an influential person in Huzumagar town.

(4) that the Investigating Agency had to collect the original cheques issued by the petitioner and trace some other Fixed Deposit Receipts and documents and that in view of this, if the petitioner is allowed to be at large, he was likely to interfere with the investigation and tamper with the evidence and create hurdles for collecting documentary evidence by managing the concerned officials.

4. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have accepted the pleas advanced on behalf of the prosecution as above. 'The learned Sessions Judge observed that as stated by the learned Magistrate himself in the order granting bail, the petitioner was a practising advocate and Ex-President of the Bar Association, Huzumagar, which it would appear, was a circumstance to show that the petitioner was an influential person. The learned Sessions Judge further observed that when there was an apprehension of tampering of evidence, the learned Magistrate should not have granted bail and prosecution ought to have been given reasonable opportunity to collect evidence before granting bail finally, the learned Sessions Judge held that the learned Magistrate did not exercise his discretion judiciously in granting bail and as such the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be allowed to stand and it deserves to be cancelled and accordingly allowed the petition for cancellation of bail.

5. The observations of the learned Sessions Judge would disclose that he found fault with the Magistrate for granting bail, mainly on the ground that the learned Magistrate failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner was an influential person and that there was allegation of likelihood of tampering with evidence and that the prosecution had some documents to be recovered from the petitioner. A reading of the order of the learned Sessions Judge would show that the learned Sessions Judge dealt with the order of the Magistrate granting bail as if he was hearing an appeal against the said order granting bail. In the process, the learned Sessions Judge appears to have lost sight of the considerations which should weigh in cancelling bail already granted to an accused as pointed out by Supreme Court in the case of Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra1. It would be apposite to extract the observation of the Supreme Court on this question, which were quoted from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Da