( 1 ) RULE. Mr. A. D. Oza, learned PP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. P. S. Champaneri learned advocate for the respondent no. 2.

( 2 ) THE applicant, General Co-operative Bank Depositors Account Holders and share Holders Association, has filed this application for cancellation of bail granted to opponent No. 2 in connection with CR No. 1-121/02 with Naranpura Police Station.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the applicant that there are two group of Companies one that of chairman of the Bank who owes Rs. 34 crores and the second is that of C. N. Shah group of Companies who owes Rs. 45 crores to the General Co-operative Bank in collusion and in connivance with the Bank Officers, the total amount due to the bank is rs. 79 crores. The first group Chairman and three other accused are already released on regular bail by the learned Magistrate whereas Mr. C. N. Shah who is also a member of loan advance committee is still not traceable and his son Nimesh C. Shah was arrested by the police and was on bail granted by the learned City Sessions Judge. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier all the accused were charged with offences punishable under Secs. 406,409,420,467,468,471 and 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code and Secs. 16 and 24 of the Banking Regulation Act on 11. 1. 2002. However, on the next day, the police gave application to delete Secs. 16 and 24 of Banking Regulation Act and adding sec. 20 of the said Act. Thereafter, on 15. 2. 2002 the Police gave application for deleting Secs. 406, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC. On 19. 2. 2002, application was given for adding Sec. 409 of IPC and again gave application on 21. 2. 2002 for deleting Sec. 409 of IPC. On 22. 2. 2002, application was given for adding Secs. 406 and 420 of IPC. In the meantime, on 22. 2. 2002, the arrested accused were released on bail. On 24. 2. 2002, application was given for adding Secs. 406, 409, 420 471, 467 468 and 120 (B) of IPC and Sec. 20 of Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, in the submissions of Mr. Prajapati, learned Advocate for the applicant, the investigating agency has given applications to add and delete certain sections at their sweet will to see that the accused may be released on bail. According to Mr. Prajapati L. A. for the petitioner/applicant, in very cursory manner, the learned trial Court Judge has granted bail to the opponent No. 2 mr. Nimesh Shah in Cri. Misc. Application No. 399/02 on 5. 3. 2002, while going me through the order of learned trial Court, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that no stringent conditions were enforced on opponent No. 2 while releasing him on bail. It is further submitted that if we go through the order of the learned trial Court judge, on one hand it is stated that there is fraud of Rs. 70 crores and on the other hand it comes to the conclusion that the offences charged are treble by the Metropolitan magistrate Court and that accused is not going to tamper with the written evidence of the case which are in the custody of the Police. At one stage also, it is mentioned that the Court has not understood what is the case against the opponent No. 2. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, runs the submissions of learned Advocate for the applicant, that the opponent No. 1 State of Gujarat has not filed any application for cancellation of bail of opponent No. 2, the applicant has every right to come to the Court and pray for cancellation of bail granted to opponent No. 2.

( 4 ) SO far as who can apply for cancellation of bail is concerned, Mr. Prajapati learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision in case of Puran vs. Rambilas and Anr. , reported in 2001 Crlj 2566, wherein it is stated that the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or 523 abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. One