The power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material consideration in such a situation is whether the accused would be readily available for his trial or whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with the evidence.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 22.5.1998 passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 256/97 by which he has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners on 5.8.1997 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 112/97 under Secs. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The facts of the case in brief is that one Devendra Kumar Singh filed complaint case No. 328/97 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioners and one Narain Prasad Kushwaha and the said complaint petition was forwarded to the police under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for instituting a case and making investigation thereof and accordingly, Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 112 of 1997 was instituted under the aforementioned sections of the Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari and prayed for grant of bail. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the entire facts of the case granted bail to the petitioners by his order dated 5.8.1997 and on furnishing bail bonds the petitioners were released.

3. It appears that within a week the informant filed the petition before the Sessions Judge, Motihari for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5.8.1997. The grounds stated in the petition for cancellation of bail is that there was no discrepancy between the first information report and the complaint and that the accused Narain Prasad Kushwaha made a statement under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal. Procedure accepting his role and further that the petitioners threatened the informant that they would realise from him the expenses incurred in getting bail and that the petitioner No. l threatened the informant on 6.8.1997 and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 threatened him on 7.8.1997 and further that the bail was granted for extraneous reasons. The learned Sessions Judge issued notice to the petitioners to show cause as to why the prayer for cancellation of bail should not be allowed. In response to the said notice the petitioners appeared and filed their show cause denying and disputing the allegations made by the informant. In the meantime cancellation application was transferred to the Court of 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, who after hearing the parties on several dates referred the matter to the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Incharge for making inquiry into the matter and directed for submission of report before 31.3.1998. It appears that the learned Magistrate submitted his report after making necessary inquiry and according to the report of the Magistrate the allegations have been made by the informant only for the purpose of cancellation of bail. The 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, however, after hearing the parties passed the impugned order and cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

4. Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. B.K. Singh,, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. I have also perused the record including the cort submitted by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Incharge, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 5/C of the application.

5. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge disagreed with the inquiry repon submitted by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Incharge, and after going through the evidence of the witnesses recording during inquiry it came to the conclusion that the petitioners threatened the informant of dire consequences if he and other persons give evidence in Court is support of the complaint petition.

5-A. Before appreciating the view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge it