Judgment:
Harbans Lal, J.
1. This application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeks cancellation of order dated 6.7.2005 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dausa in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 162/2005 whereby anticipatory bail has been granted to non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 in F.I.R. No. 409/2005 P.S. Dausa for offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 307 I.P.C.
2. The aforesaid F.I.R. came to be registered on 13.6.2005 with the allegations that non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 are family members of the husband of complainant Smt. Uganti who harassed and tortured her mentally and physically by making illegal demands of dowry. As the parents of the complainant failed to fulfil the aforesaid illegal demand of dowry, they pushed her from above of the roof of the house as a result of which she sustained a fracture. It is further alleged that intention of the non-petitioners was to cause her death.
3. On an application being made by non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., they were granted the indulgence of pre-arrest bail vide order sought to be cancelled. Although, no specific ground for cancellation of bail has been pleaded and made out yet, it appears that the grievance of the petitioners is that the learned Court below has not exercised its discretion judicially and properly.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the authorities referred to at the bar.
5. It is now well settled in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aslam Baba Lal Desai v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1993 SC 1 which is reiterated and reaffirmed in the cases of Mahant Chand Nath Yogi and Anr. v. State of Haryana : JT 2002 (8) SC 343 : (RLW 2003(2) SC 183) and Nityanand Rai v. State of Bihar and Anr. : 2005 Cr.L.J. (SC) 2187 : (RLW 2005(2) SC 237) that the grounds for cancellation of bail are different from the considerations for grant of bail. The bail once granted cannot and ought not to be cancelled lightly, mechanically and in a routine manner. The grounds for cancellation of bail should be those which arose after the grant of bail and should be referrable to the conduct of the accused while on bail.
6. In the instant case, no such case has been pleaded and made out. Nothing has been shown from the order of the learned court below that the judicial discretion exercised by it in granting anticipatory bail to non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 was exercised either erroneously or on any irrelevant considerations. The learned court below has given reasons for grant of anticipatory bail to non-petitioners No. 1 to 7 and it is not the case of the petitioners that the grounds mentioned in the order are against the record. It is noteworthy that the challan has since been filed and non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 have been enlarged on regular bail by the court below.
7. In view of the foregoing discussions therefore, no valid case for cancellation of bail to non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 is made out and this application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.