SAYED TALATUF ALI v. MD. ABDUL MABOOD — 1980 DIGILAW 44 (ORI)

JUDGMENT : N.R. Das, J. - All the three applications relate to cancellation of bail of four accused persons in a case of murder under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The investigation is in progress. The Sessions Judge has enlarged all the four persons on bail. Criminal Misc. Case No. 15/80 has been preferred by the informant against one of the accused persons and Criminal Misc. Case No. 16/80 has been preferred by the informant also against the other three. Criminal Misc. Case No. 97/80 has been preferred by the State against all the four persons So, for the sake of convenience, reference is made to the persons arrayed as opposite parties in Criminal Misc. Case No. 97/80. 2. An oral information was lodged by the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 15/80 and 16/80 at the Tirtol Police Station that opposite party No. 1 and his associates including opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 murdered one Adam Ahmad on 22-11-1979 at about 7.30 p.m. in a mango grove in village Krushnanandapur. It is alleged that the deceased retired from service in February, 1979 and was residing in the village. He had previous enmity with the opposite parties since 1952 on account of disputes over a tank and relating to management of the local village High School. Litigation's are pending between the parties. In the year 1972 also, the father of two of the opposite parties along with others filed a petition before the Settlement Officer, but became unsuccessful. The dispute related to a tank in the village. The deceased also filed some civil suits against the Managing Committee of the village High School consisting of one of the opposite parties and others. Apart from these cases relating to the tank and the Managing Committee or the School, a number of other civil and criminal litigation's have been instituted by the deceased against the opposite parties prior to the date of occurrence. The deceased was also previously threatened with assault and murder. As the deceased was apprehending risk to his life, he gave up going out during night hours. On 22-11-1979 at about 11 a.m., the deceased returned from Cuttack and he was informed by his wife that he was to attend a meeting in the evening. Accordingly, the deceased left his house for the meeting at about 5.30 p.m. From the grocery shop of one Md. On 22-11-1979 at about 11 a.m., the deceased returned from Cuttack and he was informed by his wife that he was to attend a meeting in the evening. Accordingly, the deceased left his house for the meeting at about 5.30 p.m. From the grocery shop of one Md. Hasim, the deceased along with one Sk. Afsar Ali proceed towards the place of meeting at about 6 p.m., followed by the informant Syed Talatuf Ali. As the meeting could not be held, the informant, Sk. Afsar Ali and the deceased returned home at about 7 p.m. The informant went towards his house and the deceased came along with Afsar. From a crossing near a mango grove, both of them came walking through the mango grove on the footpath. Afsar got himself separated from the deceased at a distance of about 70 to 80 feet from a partly removed brick heap and after proceeding 10 to 12 cubits towards his house ; opposite party No. 4 along with one Alarakha (since absconding) passed in front of Afsar. Immediately thereafter, Afsar heard a groaning sound from the side of the brick heap and so he advanced towards that side by focusing a torchlight. At that time he saw opposite party No. 3 Azad and another person running away from that place and the deceased lying on the ground near the brick heap. Opposite party No. 1 Fakir came running towards him holding an iron-rod followed by opposite party No. 4 Mabood. Opposite party No. 1 gave him a push and threatened to finish his entire family if he would shout or disclose the incident to any one, and ordered him to return home quietly. Opposite party No. 4 was holding a knife, more than one foot in length. Afsar was put to fear of instant death by opposite party No. 1, for which he could not dare to disclose the fact. In the morning on 23-11-1979 the deceased was found lying dead by the side of the brick heap with multiple bleeding injuries. Of the four opposite parties, opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 were arrested one or two days after the investigation started, but opposite party No. 4 was arrested at Cuttack some days thereafter. All the opposite parties moved the Sessions Judge, Cuttack for bail. Of the four opposite parties, opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 were arrested one or two days after the investigation started, but opposite party No. 4 was arrested at Cuttack some days thereafter. All the opposite parties moved the Sessions Judge, Cuttack for bail. The Sessions Judge has allowed bail on the ground that the evidence of Afsar Ali recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code appears, to have been developed later on while his evidence was recorded under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code and there was no clinching evidence against the opposite parties excepting the evidence of Afsar. He has further found that at best it can only be said that the opposite parties might have caused the murder as they had previous litigation with the deceased. On the aforesaid grounds, all the opposite parties have been enlarged on bail. 3. It is contended on behalf of the State as well as the informant that the Sessions Judge has erred in not taking into consideration the materials available from the case diary that there was long-standing enmity between the deceased and the opposite parties; there were repeated threats by the opposite parties to murder the deceased; some of the opposite parties were making enquiries about the whereabouts of the deceased prior to the occurrence; the opposite parties were found sitting together on a culvert very close to the place of occurrence and proceeding towards the place of occurrence being armed; one of the opposite parties was purchasing Pan when he was called by opposite party No. 1 from a place near about the place of occurrence and he hurriedly proceeded that side; and opposite party No. 4 was found in an agitated state of mind after the occurrence and he left for Cuttack that night in a truck and was apprehended at Cuttack on 9-12-1979. Besides the aforesaid materials on record, the evidence of one Amjad Ali who was previously a servant of opposite party No. 1 recorded by the police under section 161 and also under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code clearly implicates all the four opposite parties in the crime. Besides the aforesaid materials on record, the evidence of one Amjad Ali who was previously a servant of opposite party No. 1 recorded by the police under section 161 and also under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code clearly implicates all the four opposite parties in the crime. The police has also instituted a case under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code in which the opposite parties are members of the Second Party and it is reported that after their release on bail, the opposite parties are misusing their liberty and they are threatening the witnesses to assault and tense atmosphere is prevailing in the village. Affidavits of three persons who are examined by the police and also the evidence of some recorded under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code have been filed to show that the opposite parties after being enlarged on bail are threatening the witnesses to murder and finish their entire families and the witnesses are terror-stricken. A number of station diary entries have been made in this connection in order to show how the opposite parties have been threatening and terrorising the witnesses and the witnesses are apprehensive of their lives as well as other members of their families. 4. This is a case of alleged murder. The question of cancellation of bail came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in State of Orissa v. Artatran Singh and others Crl. Misc. Case Nos. 451, 452 and 453 of 1978 decided on 19.7.1979. It was held therein that the Court has to consider first of all whether a prima facie case has been made out and the gravity and the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed. In addition to the same, the Court has also to consider whether there is likelihood of the accused absconding and tampering with the prosecution evidence which will hamper fair trial of the case in a Court of justice. In addition to the same, the Court has also to consider whether there is likelihood of the accused absconding and tampering with the prosecution evidence which will hamper fair trial of the case in a Court of justice. The Supreme Court in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh AIR 1962 S.C. 253 , laid down the criteria for consideration for granting of bail in cases of non-bailable offences; such as nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with, the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other considerations. In Gurucharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 S.C. 179 , the Supreme Court was considering the principle of cancellation of bail. It has been laid down in the said decision that the grave apprehension of the prosecution that, there was a likelihood of the accused tampering with the prosecution witnesses was one of the considerations. In relation to the circumstances of the case, revealed from the allegations and the position of the accused in relation to the eyewitnesses, it was incumbent upon the Court to give proper weight to the serious apprehension of the prosecution with regard to tampering with the eye-witnesses. It was observed that the matter would have been different if there was absolutely no basis for apprehension of the prosecution with regard to tempering of the witnesses and the allegation rested only on a bald statement. The only question which the Sessions Judge was required to consider at the stage of bail was whether there was prima facie case made out, as alleged, on the statements of the witnesses and on other materials. The taint of unreliability could not be attached to the statement of a witness and whether his evidence will ultimately be held to be trustworthy will be an issue at the stage of trial. In considering the question of bail of an accused in a non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, it is necessary for the Court to consider whether the evidence discloses a prima facie case to warrant his detention besides other relevant factors. In considering the question of bail of an accused in a non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, it is necessary for the Court to consider whether the evidence discloses a prima facie case to warrant his detention besides other relevant factors. In addition to the aforesaid observation, the Supreme Court has further held : "We may repeat the two paramount considerations, viz., likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tempering with prosecution evidence relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a Court of justice. It is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail." The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court was again considered in The State through the Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi AIR 1978 S.C. 961 . The Supreme Court came to the following conclusion :- "Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. The fact that prosecution witnesses have turned hostile cannot by itself justify the inference that the accused has won them over. The objective fact that witnesses have turned hostile must be shown to beat a causal connection with the subjective involvement therein of the accused. Without such proof, a bail once granted cannot be cancelled on the off chance or on the supposition that witnesses have been won over by the accused. Inconsistent testimony can no more be ascribed by itself to the influence of the accused than consistent testimony, by itself, can be ascribed to the pressure of the prosecution. Of their own volition a relative of an accused may resile out of natural love and affection and an employee out of a sense of gratitude. Inconsistent testimony can no more be ascribed by itself to the influence of the accused than consistent testimony, by itself, can be ascribed to the pressure of the prosecution. Of their own volition a relative of an accused may resile out of natural love and affection and an employee out of a sense of gratitude. It is therefore necessary for the prosecution to show some act or conduct on the part of the accused from which a reasonable inference may arise that the witnesses have gone back on their statements as a result of an intervention by or on behalf of the accused." As to how prosecution has to establish the aforesaid facts, the Supreme Court has observed :- "The same standard of proof as in a civil case applies to proof of incidental issues involved in a criminal trial like the cancellation of bail of an accused. The prosecution, therefore, can establish its case in an application for cancellation of bail by showing on a preponderance of probabilities that the accused has attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses. Proving by the test of balance of probabilities that the accused has abused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice is all that is necessary for the prosecution to do in order to succeed in an application for cancellation of bail. xx xx The power to take back in custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. But the power, though of an extraordinary nature, is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases, when, by a preponderance of probabilities, it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses. Refusal to exercise that wholesome power in such cases, few though they may be, will reduce it to a dead letter and will suffer the Courts to be silent spectators to the subversion of the judicial process." From the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court, it would appear that the paramount consideration for cancellation of bail is whether there has been a prima facie case. The evidence is not to be weighed which is the duty of the trial Court. The evidence is not to be weighed which is the duty of the trial Court. The gravity of the offence and whether the accused has misused his liberty after he is enlarged on bail, resulting in reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses are to be established by the prosecution on preponderance of probabilities. The supervening circumstances are also to be taken into consideration. Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the opposite parties, relies on the decision reported in Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1978 S.C. 1594 . The facts and circumstances and the points for consideration in that case are absolutely different from the instant case. In that case the question was whether poor persons who are accused in criminal cases and are unable to supply proper sureties should or should not be allowed to remain in jail or should be enlarged on bail. Reliance was also placed by the opposite parties on the decision reported in Bashir v. State of Haryana AIR 1978 S.C. 55 . It was held therein that once the accused has been enlarged on bail under Section 167(2), Criminal Procedure Code, the Court before directing the arrest of the accused and committing him to custody should consider it necessary to do so under section 437(5). This may be done by the Court coming to the conclusion that after the challan had been filed there are sufficient grounds that the accused had committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary that he should be arrested and committed to custody. Consideration of this principle does not arise in the present case. But in that very case, the Supreme Court has observed : "It may also order arrest and committal to custody on other grounds such as tampering of the evidence or that his being at large is not in the interests of justice." This decision, therefore, to some extent supports the prosecution in the instant case. Reliance has also been placed on Babu Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1978 S.C. 527 . This was a case of appeal against acquittal and the considerations were different in that case. The Supreme Court was considering the question of application of the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This has no application to the present case. 5. This was a case of appeal against acquittal and the considerations were different in that case. The Supreme Court was considering the question of application of the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This has no application to the present case. 5. Afsar Ali is the only person, according to prosecution, who was present near about the spot of occurrence though he has not himself seen the occurrence. His evidence was recorded by the Officer-in-charge of the local police station on 23-11-1979. It is an admitted fact that after some days the Crime Branch took up investigation. Afsar Ali did not implicate anybody in the actual occurrence in his statement recorded by the Officer-in-charge of the local police station save and except stating that opposite party No. 1 had assaulted some of the witnesses for the deceased in the previous litigation. But in his statement recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code recorded by the officers of the Crime Branch, he has implicated all these persons and has stated that he was threatened with assault. In his statement recorded under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code as Well as in his statement before the officers of the Crime Branch, he has implicated all the four opposite parties remaining present at the place of occurrence in the night of November 22nd in the mango grove near the brick heap. From the evidence of Abdul Khala @ Khalil, it appears that he implicates opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 about their enquiry of the whereabouts of the deceased prior to the occurrence. About five witnesses have spoken about the fact that one of the accused persons was purchasing Pan when he was called from the other side of the tank by opposite party no. 1 and he immediately ran towards that place. One Safakat Ali has also stated to the same effect. He also saw all the four opposite parties sitting on a culvert, a little away from the place of occurrence and thereafter proceeding armed towards the mango grove where the occurrence took place. He says that being under terror he did not disclose the facts. He has stated that there was a conspiracy before-hand among these four opposite parties to kill the deceased. They all came armed and when they came back, the knives were tainted with blood and thereafter all the four persons took their bath. He says that being under terror he did not disclose the facts. He has stated that there was a conspiracy before-hand among these four opposite parties to kill the deceased. They all came armed and when they came back, the knives were tainted with blood and thereafter all the four persons took their bath. After the order of the learned Sessions Judge, police has also examined one Sk. Amjad Ali who was at the time of occurrence a servant of opposite party no. 1. He has given a vivid description as to how all the four opposite parties proceeded being armed that day and after coming back home they took their bath. Afsar has clearly stated that he was terrified being threatened and, as such, he did not disclose the fact, but subsequently he has narrated the incident when the Crime Branch came for investigation. In his statement under section 164 he has narrated the entire facts. From the statement of Amjad Ali recorded under actions of the four opposite parties is to be found. The Sessions Judge has not at all taken into consideration the evidence of Safakat and the statement recorded under section 164 of Afsar Ali to the effect that all the four opposite parties were found a little before the occurrence sitting near a culvert which is at a distance of about 150 feet from the place of occurrence and that one of the opposite parties while purchasing Pan was called by opposite party no. 1 from the place of that culvert and he proceeded towards that place and from there they proceeded inside the mango grove which was the place of occurrence. There are statements of two persons who have seen opposite party no. 4 in the night of occurrence in a perplexed state of mind and he proceeded in a truck to Cuttack and in fact he was arrested at Cuttack on 9th of December. This opposite party no. 4 is a Physical Training Teacher of the School and from the records of the School it appears that he left the school in connection with the affairs of the school to be done at Cuttack and he left the school at about 12 noon. This opposite party no. 4 is a Physical Training Teacher of the School and from the records of the School it appears that he left the school in connection with the affairs of the school to be done at Cuttack and he left the school at about 12 noon. But he did not proceed to Cuttack till 9 to 10 p.m. in the night and he was found in the aforesaid situation when he left for Cuttack in a truck. All the aforesaid materials available on record show a prima facie case against all the four persons. The Court is not to weigh the evidence and come to the conclusion whether it is tainted or the witnesses are reliable, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Gurucharan Singh case AIR 1978 S.C. 179 (supra). The materials on record clearly show a prima facie case and the Sessions Judge has enlarged the accused persons on bail because there was absence of clinching evidence. That has no consideration at the stage. He has only considered the evidence of Afsar Ali. But the evidence of Afsar Ali recorded by the officer of the Crime Branch as well as that recorded under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code coupled with other materials available on record clearly show that there is prima facie case. 6. After the opposite parties were enlarged on bail, it is alleged that they have abused their liberty and have threatened die witnesses. Three affidavits have been filed by Afsar; Talatuf and Safakat to the effect that they were threatened by different opposite parties to the extent that their entire family members will be killed. They have also made station diary entries to the above effect. In addition to this, the report of the police officer in the case under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code clearly shows that the situation at the locality is very tense and the witnesses have been terrorised by the opposite parties. A number of station diaries have been entered to show such high-handed actions of the opposite parties and how the entire situation is in a tense condition. Prosecution, as has been held by the Supreme Court, has to convince the Court with preponderance of probabilities. A number of station diaries have been entered to show such high-handed actions of the opposite parties and how the entire situation is in a tense condition. Prosecution, as has been held by the Supreme Court, has to convince the Court with preponderance of probabilities. All these materials on record clearly show that the actions of the opposite parties give rise to reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence, so as to impede course of justice. In view of the principles laid down in the case of Gurucharan Singh and in the case of Sanjay Gandhi (supra) there are sufficient materials on record to show that there is a prima facie case. The offence is a grave one. There was ill-feeling for a long time between the deceased and the opposite parties; the opposite parties belong to one group; they were found sitting together at a culvert near the place of occurrence a little before the occurrence and then proceeding towards the place of occurrence; they threatened Afsar after the occurrence; the servant gives clear description about the activities of the four opposite parties and also opposite party no. 4 going away late at night to Cuttack and he was arrested at Cuttack after several days, are sufficient to lead to the conclusion that there is prima facie case. After being enlarged on bail, the opposite parties are threatening the witnesses and the entire village is in terrorised condition, so as to prevent collection of further evidence at the locality when the case is under investigation. The station diary entries, the affidavits as well as the report of the police in the case under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code clearly show how the opposite parties are out to tamper with the evidence by terrorising the witnesses and the entire locality is surcharged with tension. These are factors to be taken into consideration while considering the question of cancellation of bail, inasmuch as have material effect on the course of administration of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to hold that the opposite parties should not be allowed to continue on bail. 7. In the result, all the petitions are allowed. The bail granted to the opposite parties is cancelled and all the opposite parties in Criminal Misc. Case No. 97 of 1980 are directed to surrender to custody. Sd. N.K. Das. 7. In the result, all the petitions are allowed. The bail granted to the opposite parties is cancelled and all the opposite parties in Criminal Misc. Case No. 97 of 1980 are directed to surrender to custody. Sd. N.K. Das. P.K. Mohanti, J. - I had the advantage of perusing the order which is about to be delivered by my learned brother and with which I am in agreement; but I would like to add a few words of my own. 9. In a matter coming up before us under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, what we have to consider is whether at the time when the application for cancellation of bail is made the circumstances are such that the accused persons cannot be allowed to continue on bail and should be taken into custody. It is within the jurisdiction of this Court to consider whether or not the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail should or should not be maintained and also whether the accused persons should be allowed to continue on bail. 10. In Gurucharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 S.C. 179 referred to by my learned brother, their Lordships held : "......The overriding considerations in granting bail to which we adverted to earlier and which are common both in the case of section 437(1) and section 439(1), Criminal Procedure Code of the new Code are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many variable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out." 11. The learned Sessions Judge released the accused persons on bail on the grounds that the witnesses Afsar Ali made different statements at different stages, that his statements could not be accepted as "sufficient evidence" against the accused; that there was no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime; that there was no "reliable evidence" to show that the accused persons were seen in the company of the deceased prior to the occurrence and that there was no "clinching evidence" against the accused persons. 12. The learned Sessions Judge seems to think that bail should not be refused to an accused unless there are sufficient reliable evidence to connect him with the crime. At the stage of granting bail, the Court is concerned with the existence of materials against the accused and not whether such Materials are credible or not on the merits. See Gurucharan Singh v. State AIR 1978 S.C. 179 Para 21. This is not the stage for holding that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused rests on the prosecution. That stage arrives at the end of the investigation and in course of the trial. Until the witnesses are examined at the trial, it cannot be said that no reliance can be placed on them. In Gurucharan Singh v. State AIR 1978 S.C. 179 , the Sessions Judge granted bail to the accused persons observing : "the witnesses..... themselves already tampered with their evidence by making contradictory statements......." Their Lordships while upholding the order of the High Court cancelling the bail made the following observations : "The learned Sessions Judge was not alive to the legal position that there was no substantive evidence yet recorded against the accused until the eye-witnesses were examined in the trial which was to proceed unimpeded by any vicious probability. The witnesses stated on oath under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code that they had made the earlier statements due to pressurisation by some of the appellants. Where the truth lies will be determined at the trial." The witness Afsar Ali has made statement on oath under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code implication the accused persons in the crime. The witnesses stated on oath under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code that they had made the earlier statements due to pressurisation by some of the appellants. Where the truth lies will be determined at the trial." The witness Afsar Ali has made statement on oath under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code implication the accused persons in the crime. He may or may not stick to his earlier statement before the police, it is impossible to know at this stage what evidence would be produced at the trial and what arguments may be used as to the credibility of the evidence of Afsar Ali. In my opinion, at this stage of the investigation any such objections are premature. The occurrence took place on the evidence of 22-11-1979. The witness Afsar Ali who was examined by the local police on 23-11-1979 did not implicate the accused persons with the crime. On 25-11-1979, some of the residents of the locality made an application to the Inspector-General of Police, Orissa alleging that they apprehended that the local police had been gained over by the accused and that unless some efficient police officer was entrusted with the investigation, a brutal murderer would go unpunished-vide Annexure-1 filed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 15 of 1980. Then the Crime Branch took over investigation of the case on 3-12-1979. The statement of the witness Afsar Ali was recorded by a police officer of the Crime Branch on 9-12-1979. His statement was also recorded under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code by a Magistrate on 14-12-1979. In his subsequent statements dated 9-12-1979 and 14-12-1979, the witness implicated Fakir Mian, Kala Sona and Md. Azad Ahmed (opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Criminal Misc. Case No. 97 of 1980) and stated that immediately after the occurrence Fakir Mian threatened him that unless he kept quiet he would be killed like the deceased Adam Ahmed along with his family members. 13. Some other evidence collected by the police regarding the conduct of the accused persons preceding the occurrence do next appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Session Judge. Some new materials have also come to light subsequent to the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Some other witnesses have made statements implicating the accused persons. 13. Some other evidence collected by the police regarding the conduct of the accused persons preceding the occurrence do next appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Session Judge. Some new materials have also come to light subsequent to the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Some other witnesses have made statements implicating the accused persons. Even assuming that the learned Sessions Judge has properly exercised the discretion in granting bail, if subsequently new materials pointing to the guilt of the accused are discovered, this Court can interfere with the discretion and cancel the bail. 14. This is a serious case of a gruesome murder. Investigation of the case is still in progress. One of the accused has evaded arrest and remained untraced. It is not a straight case and the incident appears to be shrouded in mystery. A very careful and thorough investigation is called for to unravel the mystery and unearth the truth. 15. These considerations apart, it appears from the affidavits filed into this Court that the accused persons are intimidating the witnesses and are using the liberty granted to them to suborn the evidence. Investigation is likely to be seriously hampered and there is the likelihood of important pieces of evidence being tampered if the accused persons continue on bail. 16. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, I agree with my learned brother that the bail should be cancelled and the accused persons should be taken into custody. 17. Before parting with this case, I would direct that the investigation should be completed without undue delay and in case the accused persons are charge-sheeted and committed to the Court of Session, the learned Sessions Judge will take up the trial at an early date and dispose of the case expeditiously.