ORDER

26.02.2020 Heard Mr. K. K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. PP for the State and Mr. I. A. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2.

2. This is an application under Section 439(2) Cr.PC for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No. 2 by order dated 03.07.2019 in BA No. 1781 of 2019.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that pursuant to the bail granted to the Opposite Party No. 2 vide order dated 03.07.2019, the Opposite Party No. 2 has misused the liberty and has started pressurizing the applicant with dire consequences, asked him to withdraw the case.

4. It is also submitted that the Opposite Party No. 2 is threatening the prosecution witnesses by threatening them to be implicated in the false criminal cases and accordingly, on 11.07.2019, an FIR was filed by one Fakhar Uddin Ahmed before the Superintendent of Police, Hojai Sankardevnagar. In the said FIR, it was alleged that while he was returning home from Borhawar Tiniali Bazar, on 08.07.2019 at about 1:00 p.m. the two accused named therein including the opposite party No. 2 had intercepted him and threatened that unless he withdraws the case, they would kill the informant. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Opposite Party No. 2 has misused the liberty and therefore, the bail be cancelled. He has submitted that vide the order dated 10.02.2020, this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Hojai to furnish the requisite information regarding the FIR dated 11.07.2019 having relation to the previous case lodged as Murajhar PS Case No. 477/2018.

5. The report as received has been produced by the learned State Counsel before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that the FIR dated 11.07.2019 was lodged by Fakhar Uddin Ahmed, who has not approached the Court. It is also submitted that the previous FIR dated 02.11.2018, resulting in Murajhar PS Case No. 477/2018 was lodged by the same informant, namely, Fakhar Uddin Ahmed. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant before this Court is neither the informant nor the alleged victim as the present application has filed by one Ruhul Amin.

7. It is submitted that the appearance of the accused cannot be secured for trial can be the only ground for cancellation of bail. In this regard, he has relied on the case of Dolat Ram Vs State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349. It is seen from the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Hojai dated 25.02.2020 that in connection with the FIR dated 11.07.2019, the police has registered Murajhar PS Case No. 316/2019 under Sections 341/294/506/34 IPC. It is submitted therein that the applicant and the witnesses were examined under Section 161 Cr.PC. However, despite several attempts, the Opposite Party No. 2 and the other co-accused could not be apprehended and they are reported to avoid police arrest. Accordingly, having found a prima facie case against the persons named in the FIR, showing as absconder, charge-sheet dated 31.08.2019 was submitted bearing Murajhar PS CS No. 226/2019 dated 31.08.2019.

8. The learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant has referred to the case of Abdul Basit @ Raju and Ors. Vs Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754. It would be relevant to quote paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the said judgment:-

“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 be the same court.

20. In the instant case, the r