The cancellation of bail requires substantial evidence of non-compliance with bail conditions, which was not established in this case.

ORDER :

(N. Tukaramji, J.)

1. This revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), challenging the legality of the order dated 28.02.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.152 of 2024 in Crime No.512 of 2023 (P.S.Choutuppal) passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Yadadri Bhongir, whereby the bail granted to the revision petitioners was cancelled.

2. The revision petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 in Crime No.512 of 2023 of Choutuppal Police Station, facing allegations for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.'). Pending proceedings in the crime, the trial Court, on an application, allowed the prayer for bail on 16.11.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.503 of 2023 subject to executing personal bonds for Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Choutuppal and also directed them for an appearance before the P.S.Choutuppal, in between 10.00 AM to 12.00 AM on every Monday and Wednesday till filing of the charge sheet.

3. In this backdrop, the Station House Officer, Choutuppal, filed petition to cancel the bail granted to the revision petitioners. The trial Court having considered the submissions by observing that, the prosecution had established tenable ground, cancelled the bail and directed the Police to arrest the revision petitioners/accused. Thus, this revision.

4. Heard Ms.M.Rajeswari, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were accused in another crime vide Crime No.498 of 2022 of P.S.Abdullapurmet and though they were granted bail in the present crime, they were released on 26.11.2023. Thereafter, they had appeared before the Police on 27th and 29th of November, 2023 and the Police concerned have informed them about their engagement in election duties and asked them to appear on notice/summon served on them. However, without any such move, the Police filed the petition for cancellation of bail showing non-compliance of the condition apart from the other grounds. The trial Court without considering the facts in proper perspective passed the impugned order without there being any prima facie material. Further pleaded that the petitioners are always ready to assist the investigation and arresting them by cancellation of bail granted would cause serious hardship, hence, prayed for interference and to revive the bail order granted earlier.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and pleaded that admittedly the revision petitioners have not appeared before the Police as directed in the bail order. In addition, the revision petitioners had committed similar offences and they are not cooperating with the investigating agency. They are influential persons and may cause disappearance of evidence, as such, the trial Court having found substance, rightly cancelled the bail and in absence of impropriety, the revision is liable for dismissal.

7. I have perused the material on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.

8. The facts of revision petitioners are facing accusation under Section 395 of I.P.C. and pendency of another crime of similar nature against them are not in dispute. The trial Court, considering the nature of allegations and the other merits by observing that most of the investigation is completed, granted bail, however, with a direction for appearance. As rightly pointed out by the prosecution, the revision petitioners did not adhere the direction in the bail order. However, the assertion of the revision petitioners that they have appeared before the Police concerned on two days and the alleged instruction of Police are not specifically disputed. Nonetheless, as per the direction in the bail orde