Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant who has appeared suo motu and has prayed to this Court for granting permission to assist and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This application is directed against the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Cr. Misc. No. 68 of 2009 by which the bail granted to the to the petitioner in connection with Katihar (T) P.S. Case No. 91 of 2009 by the I/C Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar on 26.5.2009 has been cancelled. Earlier by order dated 24.12.2009 the case diary had been called for and the same has since been received and is on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is an accused in the case registered under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, but he is innocent and has been falsely implicated which is clear from the fact that except from the F.I.R. and the restatement of the informant before the police, none of the other witnesses including the mother and brother of the informant has stated that the petitioner had fired upon the informant, who is also the victim and has been injured.

4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was unaware of the incident till the time the police came and arrested him which also goes to prove his innocence. He submits that the order impugned amounted to cancellation of his bail earlier granted, which could not have been done except under the circumstances which has been enumerated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) by which the person concerned has disentitled himself to remain on bail for having misused his privilege. In support of his contention learned counsel submits that the Courts have categorically and specifically held that only under limited circumstances the bail granted to the accused should be cancelled which has been enumerated in various decisions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Courts in the following cases.

(i) Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1993 SC. 1, the relevant being paragraphs no. 11 and 40.

(ii) Manzoor Alam Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2005 (4) PLJR 24, the relevant being paragraph no. 4.

(iii) Manjit Prakash & Ors. Vs. Shobha Devi & Anr. reported in 2008 (4) PLJR SC 58.

(iv) State of Kerala Vs. Raneef reported in 2011 (2) PLJR SC 49.

6. Learned counsel submits that in view of the law laid down by the Courts the bail once granted can be cancelled only for the reasons enumerated therein especially the reasons mentioned in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai (supra) which has been followed and relied in the subsequent judgments.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the informant on the other hand has submitted that the case should not be considered as cancellation of bail in the general sense since the earlier bail granted by the In-charge C.J.M. was based on erroneous grounds and not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus rightly such bail was cancelled.

8. Learned counsel submits that from bare perusal of the order granting bail to the petitioner dated 26.5.2009 by the In-charge C.J.M., Katihar it would be apparent that the only ground on which the petitioner was granted bail was that the informant of the case has not levelled any specific allegation against him under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel submits that both from the F.I.R. as well as the restatement of the informant to the police, as would be apparent from the case diary, it is clear that specific act of firing has been attributed to the petitioner and thus the very ground and basis for grant of bail being nonest, the order itself is not fit to be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision rendered in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Ra