1. Mr. C. Doraipandian, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the de facto complainant and witness (P.W.1) in this case and he has come forward with his petition seeking for the relief of canceling the bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2 for the alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was prevented by the accused persons from giving evidence before the Trail Court and as a result, he has given a Complaint before R1, Mambalam Police Station and a case was registered. It is submitted that so far 14 witnesses have been examined and six witnesses have been dispensed with by the prosecution and some more witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the threat given by the respondents 1 and 2, who have been arrayed as A1 and A2, the petitioner apprehends that the witnesses may not be in a position to come and give deposition freely without any fear. Therefore, it is contended that in view of such conduct of the respondents 1 and 2, the bail granted to them is liable to be cancelled.

3. Mr. N. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, contended that admittedly 14 witnesses have already been examined including the petitioner herein as PW.1. It is further contended that six witnesses were also dispensed with and as such there is no question of apprehension of free trail. It is contended that the respondents 1 and 2 have been falsely implicated in the Complaint preferred by the petitioner herein.

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on the submissions made by both sides.

5. I have carefully considering the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is seenthat the petitioner is the de facto complainant in this case and the respondents 1 and 2, who have been arrayed as A1 and A2, have been granted the relief of bail by this Court by order dated 14. 2008 and the only grievance of the petitioner, who is the de facto complainant is that he was prevented from giving evidence in the Trail Court and as a result, he has also preferred a Complaint before R1 Mambalam Police Station and on the basis of such Complaint, a case was registered for the alleged offence under Sections 341 and 506(ii), IPC. It is pertinent to note that admittedly the examination and cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioner herein, was over and 14 more witnesses were also examined and cross-examined and six more witnesses have been dispensed with by the prosecution and therefore, it is very clear that there was substantial progress in the trail.

7. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that granting the relief of bail is entirely different from canceling the bail which is a harsh one and for canceling such bail order some strong and compelling reasons should be made out.

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mehbood Dawood Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 SC (Cri) 551 held that,-

“Rejection of bail stands on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to.”

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, 1984 (1) SCC 284 : AIR 1984 SC 372 held as follows:

“very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that the power of grant of bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trail is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trail and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering the evidence. If there is no prima facie case there is no question of considering