JUDGMENT :

1. Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Girdhari Singh Chouhan, Panel Lawyer, for respondent No. 1/State. Shri Rajmani Bansal, counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. Present petition under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 6-8-2013 in shape of MCrC No. 5849/2013 after rejection of first two i.e. MCrC No. 7316/2013 and MCrC No. 1505/2015 on 25-10-2013 and 17-4-2015 respectively with liberty to file properly constituted petition under section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and after the charges are framed in the subsequent offence. Thus, the present application has been filed after framing of the charge for cancelling bail granted to respondent No. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeking cancellation of bail has brought on record the subsequent event of filing of an FIR bearing Crime No. 13/2014 dated 9-1-2014 where the offence alleged is of house trespass and criminal intimidation against respondent No. 2 by one Randheer Singh Raghuvanshi [one of the witnesses in Crime No. 663/2012]. This subsequent offence is alleged against respondent No. 2. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that charges have been framed against respondent No. 2 in the said subsequent offence on 22-6-2015 under section 447 and 506-II of Indian Penal Code and therefore in this factual background cancellation of bail which was granted to respondent No. 2 by order dated 6-8-2013 in shape of Mcrc No. 5849/2013 is sought on the ground that respondent No. 2 has involved in another offence intimidating one of the prosecution witnesses in Crime No. 663/2012 in which he was granted bail.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 contends that the cause of filing of an FIR bearing Crime No. 13/2014 dated 9-1-2014 alleging offence punishable under sections 447 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 2 by one Randheer Singh [a witness in the criminal prosecution bearing Crime No. 663/2012] does not give a legitimate cause to the petitioner to seek cancellation of bail of respondent No. 2. It is submitted by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Basit alias Raju and others vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754. (Para 11, 19 and 20 of the said judgment) that bail once granted cannot be cancelled by the same Court as that would amount to review of the order of grant of bail and since the concept of review/recalling of bail once granted is foreign to the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hence, no case for cancellation of bail is made out. For ready reference and convenience, paragraphs 11, 19 and 20 relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Court in the matter of Abdul Basit (supra) are reproduced below :

"11. The short question that falls for our consideration and decision is whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under section 439(2) of the Code is justified in the instant case? 19. Therefore, the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order is different from the concept of cancellation of a bail on the ground of accused's misconduct or new adverse facts having surfaced after the grant of bail which require such cancellation and a perusal of the aforesaid decisions would present before us that an order granting bail can only be set aside on grounds of being illegal or contrary to law by the Court superior to the Court which granted the bail and not by the same Court. 20. In the instant case, the respondents herein had filed the criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court seeking cancellation of bail on grounds that the bail was obtained by the petitioners herein by gross misrepresentation of facts, misleading the Court and indulging in fraud. Thus, the petiti