to accused Manjeet Singh. Though certain financial transactions happened between accused Manjeet Singh and the respondent after 28.02.2022, however, the reason for the transfer is not clear. 11. The learned ASJ further noted that there is nothing specific to connect the transactions of the respondent with the accused persons with the money transferred by the complainant. 12. Undisputedly, the ASJ ought not to have considered the application seeking interim bail as an application for regular bail. Though, whether it is an interim bail or regular bail, both are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, it cannot be denied that an opportunity is to be given to the State to file an appropriate status report, especially when the chargesheet, at that stage, was not filed. 13. While the procedure adopted by the learned ASJ may not be advisable, however, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution is seeking cancellation of bail thereby depriving the respondent of his personal liberty. 14. Much water has flown since the respondent was granted bail. It is not the case of the prosecution that post the grant of bail, the respondent has impeded the cause of justice in any manner or has misused the liberty. 15. The FIR was registered on 26.08.2022 and the impugned order was passed way back on 17.10.2022. 16. Chargesheet in the present case has already been filed and, therefore, the respondent admittedly is no longer required for any custodial interrogation. 17. In Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. : (2022) 8 SCC 559 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasised that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. Cancellation of bail must be on very cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
