Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr. Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the opposite party- Union of India.

2. The petitioner has challenge the order impugned dated 3rd of March, 2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No. 36 of 2011, whereby the petitioner’s bail has been cancelled.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted bail on 13th of January, 2011 on the ground that the prosecution had not collected any evidence to connect him with the crime. He is implicated in the case mainly on the ground that the house in which Pan Masala/Gutkha factory was running, is owned by the petitioner. The Court below in granting bail held that there is no prima facie, evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. Thereafter, the respondent-Union of India moved an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mainly on the ground that the petitioner has been found to be in constant touch with co-accused Vishnu Kant Sharma on mobile telephone which was suppressed by the petitioner from the department. Accordingly, it is stated that the petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation by way of mis-leading the Officer not disclosing about his conversation with co-accused Vishnu Kant Sharma. It is further stated that co-accused Mr. Sharma submitted that he had not entered into an agreement with the petitioner; rather the petitioner had got his signature on blank papers which have been fabricated in the form of agreement.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow after considering the aforesaid facts as well as the statement of co-accused Vishnu Kant Sharma has observed that the documents alleged as agreement entered into between the petitioner and co-accused Vishnu Kant Sharma appear to be forged as he failed to produce the original copy of the same, therefore, he cancelled the bail of the petitioner.

5. Mr. Arun Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after comparing the order of granting bail as well as cancellation of bail, it is evident that on the same very ground, the petitioner’s bail has been cancelled, on which it has been granted without taking any new and fresh material. He further submits that the petitioner had never mis-used the bail; rather as and when he was called upon by the Investigating Officer as well as other departmental authorities, he cooperated each and every time even in the mid-night, he opened his door on the call of the departmental authorities and followed them to the spot. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set out some grounds for cancellation of bail in the case of Manjit Prakash and others v. Shobha Devi and another, 2008(62) ACC 666. The relevant paragraphs 7 and 7 are reproduced herebelow :

6. It is trite law that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail stand on different footings. By a majority judgment in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, the circumstances when bail granted can be cancelled were highlighted in the following words: (SCC pp. 289-90, para 11) :

“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 dispatch and the role of the Magistrate is to oversee 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 failin