( 1 ) PETITIONER - victim in the case - has filed this application for cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by this Court (Coram : D. G. Karia J.) by his order dated 9-12-1994 in Misc. Criminal Application no. 4860 of 1994. This application is filed on the ground that the accused are threatening the victim repeatedly. However, for the same, complaints are registered, one on 14-12-1994 and another on 11-4-1995. It is further alleged that the respondents are strong-headed persons and indulge in liquor and other anti-social activities. It is, therefore, prayed for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.

( 2 ) AT the outset, learned Advocate for the petitioner states that he does not press this application qua respondent No. 4, namely, Bhaiya Ramkaran Parshuram, as he could not be served of this application and his whereabouts are not known. He also requests that in case of exigency in future, he reserves his right to file such an application.

( 3 ) ORDINARILY, when an order of bail is granted under Sec. 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (code for short), the following conditions may be imposed :-" (A) such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or (b) such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected;"if it is granted under Sec. 439 of the Code, the learned Judge, who is granting bail, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that section. However, in my opinion, while granting bail, even if the conditions are not imposed, following conditions are implied, namely, that the person shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court; and that he shall not interfere in any manner whatsoever directly or indirectly by any act of commission or omission with the administration of justice. These conditions being implied even if they are not specifically stated in the order of bail, they are required to be complied with by the accused. Grant of liberty to the accused by enlarging him on bail does not entitle him to prejudice the prosecution case in any manner whatsoever. Thus, when the accused are not entitled to indulge into any activity which may amount to interference with the due administration of justice and if he causes any act or omission which amounts to interference in the course of the due administration of justice, the bail is liable to be cancelled. Section 439 (2) of the Code contemplates that a High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. This discretion conferred on the court is required to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily and judicial exercise of discretion, in my opinion, would be that there should be some act or omission amounting to abuse of liberty in any manner whatsoever so as to prejudice prosecution. This will entitle the Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Sec. 439 (2) of the Code.

( 4 ) KEEPING in mind the above observation, in the instant case, petitioner - victim has come out with a positive case that the accused have threatened her to the effect that if she would not settle the matter, she may be assaulted again and the threat is not only verbal, but has been put in action and the offence came to be registered against the accused under Secs. 323, 324 and 114 of I. P. C. and under Sec. 135 (1) of the bombay Police Act. There is another complaint lodged and registered against the accused for the incident of 11-4-1995. No doubt, this is subsequent to this petition. Thus, it is clear that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have abused the liberty granted by the court vide its order passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 4860 of 1994.

( 5 ) IN view of