R. Basant, J.

1. The respondents herein are accused Nos. 22 and 23 in Crl. 116 of 2003 ofNemom Police Station. Serious allegations were raised against the accused inthe case of violation of the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. Both therespondents were granted anticipatory bail as per common order dated13-05-2005 by another Bench of this court. The relevant directions in theoperative portion are extracted below :-

"In the result, I direct the petitioners to surrender before the Magistrateconcerned positively in 7 days. On such surrender and on their making depositof an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each by way of cash security and each of themexecuting bail bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the likesums to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, the Magistrate shall enlarge themon bail. On such release they shall report before the investigating officerbetween 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all days for a period of one month, on everyalternate days thereafter for a period of next two months and thereafter on allTuesdays and Fridays only, till investigation in the case is over and final reportis laid. It is made clear that grant of anticipatory bail shall not stand in the wayof the Magistrate giving the petitioners in police custody for the purpose ofinterrogation in case they so ask for and the Magistrate deems fit to grant. It isfurther ordered that on release the petitioners shall not move out of theterritorial limits of the State of Kerala; that they shall furnish the detailedaddress of their abode to the investigating agency in writing with the telephonenumbers and mobile numbers for contact by the investigating agency: thatthey shall always be available for the investigating agency for the purpose ofinterrogation and that no room shall be given by them for complaint that theyare absconding. Violation of any of the above conditions shall result incancellation of anticipatory bail so granted.

These bail applications are disposed of as above.

(emphasis supplied)

2. Accordingly the respondents/accused appeared before the learnedMagistrate having jurisdiction on 19-5-2005 and were enlarged on bail onexecution of bonds/complying with conditions on that date. Thereafter theywere expected under the terms of the order extracted above to report beforethe Investigating Officer between 10 am and 11 am on all days for a period ofone month. The common order clearly shows that the respondent/complaintwas "State of Kerala, represented by Hareesh Kumar, Circle Inspector ofPolice, City Police Control Room, Thiruvananthapuram". After their release,the petitioners were expected to report before the Investigating Officer on alldays for a period of one month. Admittedly the petitioners did not report beforeSri. Hareesh Kumar, C.I. of Police, during the period 20-5-2005 to 26-5-2005.They did however start reporting before him admittedly from 27-5-2005. Theseapplications for cancellation of anticipatory bail under S.439(2) Cr.P.C. arefiled by the State on 26-5-2005 on the allegation that the conditions imposedhave not been complied with during the period, 20-5-2005 to 26-5-2005.

3. The respondents have entered appearance through counsel. They contendthat the prayer for cancellation of bail is misconceived. It is purely an ego clashbetween the C.I. referred above and the Assistant Commissioner of Police,Sankumugham who has been legally put in charge of supervision of theinvestigation by a valid order of the DGP. They contend that when they wereenlarged on bail, they were issued a memo (produced by the respondents asAnnexure R1) addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. In thesecircumstances, they had appeared before the said Assistant Commissioner ofPolice, Sankumugham from 20-05-2005 to 26-05-2005 in obedience to thedirections of this court. They had apprised the Assistant Commissioner of thedirections of the Court and had faithfully reported before him on all days from20-05-2005 to 26-05-2005. He had acknowledged such appearance a