The parameters for accepting and cancelling bail are different, and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for the cancellation of bail.

Kailash Gambhir, J.—

1. By this petition filed under Sections 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner seeks directions to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 7th July, 2012 and 23rd July, 2012.

2. Addressing arguments on the present application, Mr. S.M. Hussain, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was assigned duty by the SHO P.S Sarita Vihar to serve the restrainment order dated 20th June, 2012 passed by the SDM, Defence Colony against Mr. Bal Singh, owner of house No. H-24, Bhawani Gali, Aali Vihar, New Delhi-44 to immediately stop the illegal and unauthorized construction of the said property. Counsel also submits that the petitioner along with one constable namely Shri Mukesh Dalal had visited the said property on 1st July, 2012 at about 8.45 p.m. to serve the restrainment order issued by Mr. M.K. Dwivedi SDE/SE. At the time of serving the said notice, he met Mr. Bal Singh and when he was told to sojourn the illegal construction of the said property he started abusing the petitioner and used filthy words against him. After hearing he conversation aloud, at that very moment his wife Shakuntla, son Vineet Nagar and his brother Yograj also came out of the house. Mr. Bal Singh, respondent No.2 herein then instigated and abated all of them to beat the petitioner and broke the legs of the petitioner so that he could not come again for executing any such order. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 caught hold and surrounded the petitioner and respondents No.4 and 5 brought danda and iron rod. Both of them started mercilessly beating the petitioner with iron rod and danda on the head shoulder, hands and legs of the petitioner, which resulted in causing severe head injuries and petitioner, also suffered injuries on his hands and legs. Counsel also submits that during this vehemence and quarrel, constable Satpal who was on duty and patrolling in the area near the place of occurrence, after hearing about the said incident, he immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found that the petitioner was lying on the ground and bleeding profusely from his head and scalp, seeing the injuries on the hands of the petitioner he immediately took the petitioner on his motorcycle to AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi and got him admitted. Mr. Ranvir Singh ASI of PS Sarita Vaihar recorded his statement in hospital on 1.7.2012 and FIR No. 208/2012 was registered on 2nd July, 2012. Counsel also submits that the petitioner had received serious injuries on his scalp and his treatment continued till 7th July, 2012. Counsel also submits that the treatment of the petitioner also continued from 21st July, 2012 to 28th July, 2012 at Escort hospital, Faridabad. The main contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the serious injuries received by the petitioner at the hands of these respondents and also the fact that the petitioner in due discharge of his duties had visited the said property to execute the said order issued by the learned SDM, Defence Colony. Counsel also submits that respondent No. 2 before seeking his anticipatory bail filed a false application on 6th July, 2012 with allegations attributing false motives in the mind of the petitioner, asking for some enticement/bribe. Counsel also submits that the said complaint made by respondent No. 2 was duly enquired into by the ACP and the allegations leveled by respondent No.2 in his said complaint turned out to be totally false. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that because of the petitioner having suffered serious injuries on his head, Section 308 IPC was later added in the said FIR.

3. Counsel further submits that learned Sessions Court ignoring all these material facts granted anticipatory bail to all these respondents instead of directing their custodial interrogation. Counsel also urged that these respondents did not deserve grant of anticipat