The court emphasized that the decision to cancel interim bail should be based on justified reasons and fault should be attributed to the appropriate party.

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. I have heard counsel for the parties. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Special Judge, Bathinda, passed the order dated 9.9.1995 granting interim bail to the petitioner and asked for report from the D.S.P. Vigilance, Bathinda, with regard to the disbursement of the amount granted to the Panchayat. He further directed that the report be submitted on or before 20.10.1995. On 20.10.1995, according to Mr. Cheema, the case was adjourned to 26.10.1995 and as the report was not submitted even on that day, the learned Judge cancelled the order of interim bail and sent the accused into custody.

2. One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no fault can be found with the accused, if D.S.P. has not submitted his report as per the order of the Court and also contends the order dated 9.9.1995 could not at all be passed by the Court below in the absence of report. Certainly there appears to be no justification for passing the order dated 26.10.1995 in view of the fact that the learned Judge himself had passed the order dated 9.9.1995, granted interim bail and called for the report of the D.S.P. It appears to be little doubtful if learned Judge who passed the order dated 9.9.1995 could have passed such order. Without commenting upon the proceedings, order passed by the learned Judge dated 26.10.1995 is set aside, the petitioner is granted interim bail as granted to him by the trial Court vide its order dated 9.9.1995 on the same terms and conditions stated therein. The accused shall appear before the Court on 27.11.1995 on which date the learned Court below shall pass an order on merit afresh for accepting or rejecting the application. The petition is disposed of.