JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is an application under Sections 497 and 498(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the State to cancel the bail granted to the accused opposite-parties by the Sessions Judge, Ganjam. 2. Section 497(5) and Sub-section (2) of Section 498 newly inserted by the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 26 of 1935) expressly authorise the High Court or [the] Court of Sessions to cause a person accused of a non-bailable offence who has been admitted to bail to be re-arrested. Thus, there is no legal bar for this Court to deal with an application u/s 497 or 498(2) apart from exercising its jurisdiction under the inherent powers u/s 561A, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The three opposite parties, against whom this application has been preferred, along with some others have been committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial for offences under Sections 302/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The commitment order was made on 24-12-1965, the case against them being that they made a conspiracy and in pursuance thereof committed the murder of one Brundaban Bhole by shooting him with a gun on 5-6-1965, while he was sitting on the steps of his house. It is said that the gun was fired from the direction of the house of accused Kamraj and was aimed through a hole of his wall. The house of Kamraj is said to stand in front of the house of the deceased. In course of the commitment proceedings, seven witnesses were examined and the accused-opposite parties were duly committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. Before the Sessions Judge all the accused including the present opposite parties moved to be enlarged on bail and the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 18-5-1966, allowed the bail in respect of the three opposite parties while rejecting the prayer of others. It is against this order of the Sessions Judge allowing bail to the opposite parties, the State has filed this application for cancellation of the bail and for re-arrest of the opposite parties. 5. The offences alleged to have been committed by the accused persons are prima facie non-bailable. The ground which induced the learned Sessions Judge to grant bail to the opposite parties is that the evidence against them is "somewhat indirect and circumstantial". 5. The offences alleged to have been committed by the accused persons are prima facie non-bailable. The ground which induced the learned Sessions Judge to grant bail to the opposite parties is that the evidence against them is "somewhat indirect and circumstantial". The contention of the Public Prosecutor before him was that the accused persons are influential and there is the risk of their tampering with the prosecution evidence. He rejected the contention on the ground that "most of the witnesses have since been examined in the committing Court. So their evidence is already secured." 6. The learned Government Advocate placed the evidence of the witnesses examined in the committing Court and contended that there is direct evidence involving the opposite parties in the crime. It would, however, be not proper at this stage to express any opinion whether there is direct evidence against the opposite parties. It is sufficient to say that sometimes circumstantial evidence is more telling than direct evidence and it cannot be equated with no evidence. 7. Regarding tampering of evidence, it is alleged in the petition that after release on 18-5-1966 on bail the accused-opposite parties have been threatening the witnesses with dire consequences if they depose against them during trial. The opposite parties on the other hand dally the allegations made against them. It is difficult to ascertain the truth of either version at this stage. Mr. Mahapatra appearing for the opposite parties on the other hand contended that in view of the circumstances of the case the opposite parties have been rightly allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge. He contended that the off-chance of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence is itself no ground to reject the prayer for bail and in case bail is refused the accused persons ill not get any opportunity to defend their case as there is none to look after their evidence. 8. Whether bail is to be granted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in such cases. 8. Whether bail is to be granted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in such cases. In cases of bailable offences the accused has a right to get bail u/s 496, Criminal Procedure Code, but in cases of non-bailable offences the different considerations arise, such as, (i) the nature and seriousness of offences.; (ii) the character of evidence against the accused; (iii) the circumstances peculiar to the accused; (iv) a reasonable opportunity for the presence of the accused at the trial; (v) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and (vi) the larger interest of the public. What considerations should weigh with the Court in granting bail u/s 498, Code of Criminal Procedure have been clearly laid down in a decision of the Supreme Court in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh 1962 S.C.D. 97, which was relied upon by the learned Government Advocate. Mr. Mohapatra contended that in such matters the larger interests of the accused cannot be ignored and he should not be left in such a plight that would leave him practically undefended in the trial of a grave offence like this. He relied upon a decision of the Kerala High Court in Warrier v. State of Kerala (1964) M.L.J. 658., where the learned Judge observed that the gravity of the offence is the sole criterion in the matter of granting bail and a vague and general allegation of fear of tampering with the investigation is not a sound reason for refusing bail. He observed that an accused person should have reasonable freedom and opportunity to defend his case and it is not unreasonable to think that he could look after his case properly and defend himself only if he is on bail. The learned Judge has also observed that the Court should also at the same time take into account the other considerations laid down by the Supreme Court. The Kerala decision therefore does not afford any unqualified support to the accused persons. As already said each case has to be examined on its own merits. 9. On the careful consideration of the materials before me, I am of the opinion that the bail- bond of [the] accused Kamraj Bhole shall be cancelled and he shall be re-arrested and taken to custody until the trial is over. 10. As already said each case has to be examined on its own merits. 9. On the careful consideration of the materials before me, I am of the opinion that the bail- bond of [the] accused Kamraj Bhole shall be cancelled and he shall be re-arrested and taken to custody until the trial is over. 10. In respect of the other two accused, the amount of bail shall be enhanced to Rs. 5,000/ - each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the committing Court. It is, however, open to the State to move the learned Sessions Judge to cancel the bail-bond in respect of these two accused persons, in case there are materials to hold that they are tampering with the evidence in the case or that there are materials to show that they are abusing their liability. With these modifications in the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application is allowed in part. Application allowed in part. Final Result : Allowed