1. This first petition under section 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is filed for cancellation of bail order dated 8.10.2013 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 6833/2013.

2. The present applicant has prayed for cancellation of the bail by stating that respondent No.2 Toran Singh filed first bail application which was disallowed. Thereafter, he filed second bail application in connection with same crime No. 663/2012 registered in Police Station Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha. It is prayed that the bail granted by the order dated 8.10.2013 in M.Cr.C. No. 6833/2013 be cancelled.

3. The facts, as narrated by the petitioner, is that on 07.11.2011 FIR was registered by Rajesh Raghuvanshi against Toran Singh, Chaturbhuj and three other persons. The said FIR was registered in offences under sections 294, 324, 451 and 506 / 34 IPC. It was registered as crime No. 227/2011. Toran Singh filed a bail application before the trial Court. The trial Court by order dated 30.11.2011 enlarged Toran Singh on bail. However, certain conditions under section 437 (3) CrPC were imposed in the said bail order for Toran Singh.

4. Shri Deependra Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the incident dated 7.11.2011 which was registered as crime No. 227/2011, Harishankar was not an accused, whereas Toran Singh and Chaturbhuj were accused. It is contended that Toran Singh violated the conditions of bail order dated 30.11.2011 and again attacked Rajesh Raghuvanshi. Rajesh Raghuvanshi was returning from his agricultural farm when Toran Singh and other persons including Harishankar and Chaturbhuj attacked him by use of farsa, axe and stick. Rajesh died on the spot. This incident was recorded as crime No. 663/2012.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that initially bail was refused to Toran Singh, but in M.Cr.C. No. 6833/2013 bail was granted by this Court on the basis of parity with Harishankar who was enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench. It is contended that the case of Harishankar and Toran Singh and Chaturbhuj are entirely different. Harishankar was not an accused in the first case i.e. crime No. 227/2011, whereas Chaturbhuj and Toran Singh were accused in the commission of first crime. Harishankar joined Toran and Chaturbhuj in the second attack in which Rajesh Raghuvanshi died.

6. It is submitted that, on the basis of aforesaid factual back ground, there is no parity between Harishankar and Toran Singh, and between Harishankar and Chaturbhuj. In addition, it is submitted that in view of conduct of Toran Singh, there is every likelihood of misuse of freedom by him. He will tamper the evidence and material on record. In support of this contention, Shri Deependra Raghuvanshi relied on certain judgments.

7. Per contra, Shri R.K.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the prayer for cancellation of bail.

8. Shri A.S. Rathore, Panel Lawyer for State supported the prayer for cancellation of bail.

9. Shri R.K.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, relied on 1995 SCC (Cri) 237 (Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana), 2001 SCC (Cri.) 1124 Puran v. Rambilas and another, 2005 SCC (Cri.) 1960 (2) (State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi), and (2010) 14 SCC 496 (Prashanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another).

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. The bone of contention of Shri R.K.S. Kushwaha is that the factors for grant of bail and considering the rejection of bail are different. In other words, Shri Kushwaha submitted that the criteria and ingredient for grant of bail are totally different than that of for cancelling the bail already granted. In support of this, he relied on Dolat Ram (supra). By relying on it, it is contended that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail, already granted. Bail can be cancelled when accused interferes or attempts to interfere with the due co