The conduct of the accused subsequent to release on bail and supervening circumstances are relevant for cancellation of bail. Case law on custodial interrogation and anticipatory bail should be considered.

ARUNA SURESH, J. :-

Since both the petitions are connected matters and have been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Ghanshyam Das Gupta on 14-5-2007 and Pooja Aggarwal on 12-5-2007 who are co-accused persons in FIR No. 369/2007 Police Station Sultanpuri, registered under Ss. 468/471/420/120-B, Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).

2. Accused Pooja Aggarwal allegedly purchased a Plot No. 141, Pocket 21, Sector-24, Rohini from Smt. Manorama on 12-4-2001 by way of General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell etc. The petitioner Madhu Garg had allegedly purchased the said plot from Manorama the original allottee of DDA by way of registered documents on 17-10-1997 that is prior to the transaction which allegedly took place between Pooja Aggarwal and Smt. Manorama.

3. Pooja Aggarwal claims that she had raised construction on the said plot in October, 2006 and the house was assessed by the MCD in her name. Pooja Aggarwal also filed a civil suit seeking relief of injunction against the petitioner and she obtained an ex parte stay from this Court on 5-2-2007. Probably, the present FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner subsequent to the stay order granted in favour of accused-Pooja Aggarwal. The said civil litigation is going on inter se the parties.

4. Allegations as against Ghanshyam Dass Gupta co-accused are that he in conspiracy with the other accused persons had stolen the property papers from the petitioner and thereafter forged a false and second set of title documents in favour of co-accused Pooja Aggarwal with respect to the said property bearing Plot No. 141, Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi. Pooja Aggarwal was granted anticipatory bail in view of the civil case pending inter se the parties and in view of the fact that she had obtained an ex parte injunction against the petitioner in respect of the impugned property which is the subject-matter of registration of an FIR on behest' of the petitioner against Pooja Aggarwal and others.

5. Considering the fact that Pooja Aggarwal had been admitted on anticipatory bail and co-accused-Sunita Goel had been granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 19-4-2007 uptil 8-5-2007 and extended till 10-7-2007 and co-accused-Ghanshyam Dass Gupta was also granted anticipatory bail on 14-5-2007. The petitioner has sought cancellation of bail of both the accused persons on the grounds that at the time when Ghanshyam Dass Gupta and Pooja Aggarwal were granted bail by the learned ASJ, the police had not brought various facts to the notice of the Court as detailed in the petition.

6. For cancellation of bail, the conduct of the accused subsequent to his release on bail and supervening circumstances alone are relevant.

7. Under S. 437(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1), or subsection (2), can if it considers necessary to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody. Similarly, under S. 439(2) of the Code, a High Court or a Court of Session can direct that any person who has been released on bail under any of the provisions governing bail be arrested and commit him to custody.

8. Generally, the grounds for cancellation of bail to be considered by the Court are interference by the accused or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice i.e. abuse of the liberty granted to him, tampering with the investigation of the case, tampering with the evi: dence, intimidating the witnesses by creating or causing disappearance of evidence etc. This evasion of justice can also be an attempt by the accused to leave the country or going underground or otherwise placing himself beyond the reach of the sureties. He may misuse the liberty granted to him by indulging into similar or other unlawful acts etc.

9. In Raghubir, Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149 : (1987 Cri LJ 157), the Supreme Court laid down the pri