ORDER :

In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. None appears for respondent no.2, despite service.

3. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant has moved this bail cancellation application on the ground that the respondent in continuity of the earlier offence has once again committed offence, for which, FIR has been lodged bearing no.23/2021 on 16.02.2021 under Sections 458, 384, 504 & 506 IPC.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while bail was granted on 04.01.2021, respondent no.2 forcibly entered the marriage venue of the petitioner, hurled abuses and threatened to kidnap the couple and pour acid over them.

5. Learned PP submits that the allegations made in the FIR No.23/2021 has been thoroughly investigated and have been found to be correct as respondent no.2 arrived at marriage venue while he was drunk with a toy pistol and tried to attack the family members. He was apprehended on the spot by the police and charge-sheet regarding the said offence was filed before the trial court on 30.04.2021.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has shown the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1993 SC 1, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

“11. On a conjoint reading of Sections 57 and 167 of the Code it is clear that the legislative object was to ensure speedy investigation after a person has been taken in custody. It expects that the investigation should be completed within 24 hours and if this is not possible within 15 days and failing that within the time stipulated in Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code. The law expects that the investigation must be completed with despatch and the role of the Magistrate is to over-see the course of investigation and to prevent abuse of the law by the investigating agency. As stated earlier, the legislative history shows that before the introduction of the proviso to Section 167(2) the maximum time allowed to the investigating agency was 15 days under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 failing which the accused could be enlarged on bail. From experience this was found to be insufficient particularly in complex cases and hence the proviso was added to enable the Magistrate to detain the accused in custody for a period exceeding 15 days but not exceeding the outer limit fixed under the proviso (a) to that sub-section. We may here mention that the period prescribed by the proviso has been enlarged by State amendments and wherever there is such enlargement, the proviso will have to be read accordingly. The purpose and object of providing for the release of the accused under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 on the failure of the investigating agency completing the investigation within the extended time allowed by the proviso was to instill a sense of urgency in the invest ting agency to complete the investigation promptly and within the statutory time-frame. The deeming fiction of correlating the release on bail under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 with Chapter XXXIII, i.e. Sections 437 and 439 of the Code, was to treat the order as one passed under the latter provisions. 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 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, (i