Cancellation of anticipatory bail requires compelling reasons which were not established in this case.

1. This petitioner coming on for orders upon perusing the petitioner and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Siva Party inperson for the petitioner and of Mr. M. Babumuthumeeran Additional Pubic Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent 5, Mr. N. Duraisamy Legal Aid Counsel for R1 to R 4, the Court made the following order.
'Party inperson appeared before this Court today and submitted that there are four accused in this case and they have been granted the relief of anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 23/06/2006 for the alleged offence under S.342, 323, 324, and 307 IPC in Cri. No. 623/2006 on the file of PalliIkaranai Police Station, Chennai.'

2. It is submitted that the first accused in this case, going on giving trouble and threat to the life of the petitioner and he is not allowing the petitioner to give the evidence in this case peacefully. It is further submitted that the respondent police also not implicated the other accused and as such, the petitioner/party inperson represented before this Court that he is aggrieved on that ground also. In view of submissions the petitioner seeks the relief of cancelling the anticipatory bail.

3. Mr. N. Duraisamy, the learned counsel appearing as Legal Aid counsel for the respondents / accused 1 to 4 submitted that the petitioner party inperson has come forward with this petition without any definite allegation. It is submitted that the respondents have already complied with the condition imposed by this Court by order dated 23/06/2006 by appearing before the respondent police for a period of two weeks. It is submitted that if the petitioner is having any apprehension, he can give an appropriate complaint to the concerned police seeking for the relief of protection to his life. On the other hand, he cannot seek the relief of cancelling the bail order. It is submitted that there is absolutely no compelling reason given by the petitioner to cancel the anticipatory bail already granted to the respondents / A1 to A4.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the respondents / A1 to A4 have strictly complied with the condition and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet is also filed in this case and the case itself is pending for trial as on date in CC No. 357/2007 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having the habit of giving several complaints including the police officials. It is also submitted that one of the accused who has been arrayed as A4 is none else than the wife of the petitioner party inperson and both of them, as per the investigating officer, are living separately. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the petitioner himself being an informant as one of the witnesses in the present case, it is open to the petitioner to give his evidence and if the evidence disclose the involvement of any other accused, then those accused could be implicated as accused as per provision under S.319 CrPC.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the petitioner / party inperson, learned counsel for the respondents / accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the materials available on record.

6. It is a very unfortunate case wherein the petitioner party inperson is none else than the husband of A4. The fact remains as per the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is the complainant in a number of cases and as a matter of fact, even filed a case against the police officials. It is also seen that the respondents / accused 1 to 4 have strictly complied with the condition