JUDGMENT - N.D. KAMAT, J.:---This is an application for bail filed under section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. One Shivaji Swarupa Charapale was murdered at Kaulav, taluka Radhanagari, District Kolhapur in broad day light at 10.30 a.m. by using weapons such as knife, axe and sticks etc. One Ramu Jivaba Charapale, paternal uncle of the deceased filed, his F.I.R. in the police station at Radhanagari at about 1.30 p.m., on the same day. The police registered the offence and commenced investigation. The petitioners were arrested in connection with that murder and recorded statements of several eye witnesses and other witnesses. However, as the Investigating Officer was not able to submit charge-sheet against the petitioners accused within 60 days of the date of offence, the petitioners made an application to the Sessions Court at Kolhapur and the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Kolhapur enlarged all these petitioners accused on bail in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- each was one surety for the like amount. The Investigating Officer completed his investigation in due course and filed a charge sheet in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Radhanagari on 1st June, 1976. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 8th June, 1976 committed all the five petitioners accused to the Sessions Court at Kolhapur to stand their trial. After the petitioners accused were committed to the Sessions Court at Kolhapur, the learned Public Prosecutor, Kolhapur, preferred an application being Miscellaneous Application No. 95 of 1976 requesting the Court to cancel the bail granted to these petitioners accused. 3. In that application it was alleged that these petitioners-accused being influential persons in the village were likely to tamper with the evidence against them. 4. In the meanwhile, the father of the deceased Shivaji had also filed a private complaint implicating the present petitioners Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and three others as the murderers of his son. The learned Magistrate recorded evidence in that private case also and committed all the seven accused in that case to the Sessions Court at Kolhapur to stand their trial for the same offence. 5. The applications made by the learned Public Prosecutor for cancelling the bail granted to these petitioners-accused was strongly opposed by these petitioners-accused. 6. The learned Magistrate recorded evidence in that private case also and committed all the seven accused in that case to the Sessions Court at Kolhapur to stand their trial for the same offence. 5. The applications made by the learned Public Prosecutor for cancelling the bail granted to these petitioners-accused was strongly opposed by these petitioners-accused. 6. After hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, cancelled the bail granted to these petitioners accused, have thereupon approached this Court for being enlarged on bail under section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7. Mr. Paranjpe, learned Counsel for the petitioners accused, urged that his clients who were granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and to be deemed to be released on bail under the provisions of Chapter 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the bail ground to them could be cancelled only if there was evidence to show that they were likely to abscond or they were likely to tamper with the evidence against them or they were indulging in any criminal activity. According to Mr. Paranjpe, in the absence of any such evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in cancelling the bail and taking the petitioners-accused in custody. Mr. Paranjpe, is right in making these submission. 8. Mr. Parkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the state, however, urged that these petitioners-accused are very influential persons in the village and they are very lily to tamper the evidence against them. He also pointed out that the petitioners-accused are very dangerous persons who committed a ghastly murder in broad day light in the presence of several persons. If the petitioners accused are influential persons and they try to tamper the evidence against them, the State would of course be entitled to make an application supported by an affidavit for cancelling their bail. The bail granted to them under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be cancelled simply because they have now been committed to the Sessions Court to stand their trial or that there is abundant evidence showing their complicity in the alleged murder. The bail granted to them under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be cancelled simply because they have now been committed to the Sessions Court to stand their trial or that there is abundant evidence showing their complicity in the alleged murder. It is true that the learned Public Prosecutor did make an application for cancelling the bail of the petitioners-accused, but it was not supported by any evidence or even an affidavit has Investigating Officer and even the learned Additional Sessions Judge has himself observed in his judgment that this ground has not been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution by filing affidavits of the Investigating Officers or of any other witness. The petitioner accused shall have, therefore, to be enlarged on bail though certain conditions may be imposed upon them. Hence, the following order :--- 9. The petitioners-accused are enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each with one surety for the like amount on the following conditions :--- (1) None of the petitioners-accused shall leave the Municipal Limits of Kolhapur city without prior permission of the Court till disposal of the Sessions Case pending against them. (2) They should report to the Police Station at Shahpuri every day till the disposal of the Sessions Case. -----