Hon'ble AHLUWALIA, J.—Instant application has been filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. praying interalia that the bail granted by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City to the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4, namely Bharat Lal Gopal and Hargyan, vide its impugned order dated 19.8.2013 may be cancelled, as the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City had committed a grave error by granting bail to the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that twice bail application of Gopal, accused-respondent No. 3, herein was rejected by the High Court.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that accused-Gopal had earlier approached this Court, along with one Bharat Lal, vide S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1874/2013 and a Single Bench of this Court on 20.2.2013 had declined his bail.

4. Thereafter, Gopal had approached this Court by filing S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6474/2013 and the same was rejected vide order dated 11.7.2013.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that Hargyan, vide S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4744/2013 Hargyan had approached this Court and his application was also rejected, along with the case of Gopal, accused-respondent No. 3.

6. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once the High Court had rejected the bail of accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4, the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City could not grant the bail to the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the case of Ashok Sachdeva vs. State and Another, reported in 2012(3) WLC (Raj.) 85 = 2012(2) RLW 1617.

8. A perusal of judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Sachdeva (supra) by a Single Bench of this Court, clearly reveals that in that case after bail was rejected by this Court, then twenty-days after, bail was granted by the Court below.

9. A further reliance has been placed upon the case of Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. Through DGC (CRI) & Anr., reported in 2008(2) WLC 229 = 2008(4) RLW 3379 (SC) to contend that the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City could not grant bail to the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

10. A perusal of above judgment clearly reveals that the second bail was entertained by the Magistrate, after nineteen days of its earlier rejection.

11. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed that the grounds for grant of bail and grounds for cancellation are entirely different.

12. In the case of Aslam Bablal Desai vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1, where bail was granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the Apex Court has held that only on the following grounds bail can be cancelled.

"Once the order of release is by fiction of law an order passed under Sections 437(1) or (2) or 439(1) it follows as a natural consequence that the said order can be cancelled under Sub-section (5) of Section 437 or Sub-section (2) of Section 439 on considerations relevant for cancellation of an order thereunder. As stated in Raghubir Singh's case (AIR 1987 SC 149) the grounds for cancellation under Sections 437 (5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Sections 437(1) or (2) or 439 (1) can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document