Chandigarh, Feb. 10 -- While dismissing a petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to an accused by the high court two years ago in an alleged extortion case-where the accused had posed as officers of the Enforcement Directorate-the court held that the seriousness of the offence by itself is not a valid ground for cancellation of bail once the accused has been found entitled to anticipatory bail and has complied with the conditions imposed. The court further observed that it is settled law that anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled merely on re-appreciation of facts already considered at the time of granting bail, unless there is clear abuse of the liberty so granted. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused had grossly misused the concession of bail and that immediately after obtaining bail, he allegedly started pressuring and intimidating the petitioner to withdraw the FIR and make statements in his favour. However, a bench of Justice Sumeet Goel, in an order dated January 29, held that no material had been placed on record to prima facie establish that the accused had influenced witnesses or obstructed the course of justice in the pending trial. "In the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing material showing violation of bail conditions or misuse of liberty by the accused, this court does not find any justification to exercise the extraordinary power of cancellation of anticipatory bail," the court observed. It further noted that there was nothing on record to suggest that the accused had misused the concession of bail. Vijay Kumar, a resident of Haryana, had filed the criminal petition last year seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to one of the accused by the high court in 2023. The bail was granted in connection with an FIR registered on May 16, 2023, at Nagina police station in Nuh (Mewat), under various sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to cheating, forgery, trespassing, destruction and disappearance of evidence, criminal conspiracy, extortion, among others. The petitioner is the complainant in the case. According to the FIR, on March 29, 2023, three persons arrived at his house in a car bearing a Chandigarh registration number and posed as officers of the Enforcement Directorate. They allegedly threatened him with false implication in a tax case and demanded Rs 5 lakh, out of which Rs 2.5 lakh was paid by the petitioner. During the investigation, co-accused Inzamam-ul-Haq was arrested and recoveries were effected. The high court had granted interim anticipatory bail to accused Anil Kumar Kaishik in July 2023, which was later confirmed in September the same year. Reiterating his submissions, counsel for the complainant contended that the accused had grossly misused the concession of bail and, along with four to five associates, visited the petitioner's workshop, abused him and issued threats. It was further submitted that despite complaints being lodged with the local police and higher authorities, no effective action was taken. On the other hand, the state counsel produced an affidavit of Ajaib Singh, DSP, Ferozepur Jhirka, and argued that the petitioner was seeking cancellation of bail on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations....