Judgment :- 1. A police station is the scene of crime, a head constable accused and a Sub Inspector dead. It is said that the Head Constable was drunk when he came to the police station. He kicked the Sub Inspector. The Sub Inspector died. That was on 22nd of October. The had constable was arrested and KLT. state of kerala v. yousuf (Bhaskaran Nambiar J.) remanded to judicial custody on the 24th. Very soon thereafter, on the 5th of November, he was released on bail by the Sessions Court, Manjeri, on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/-with two sureties and on condition that the accused shall not enter the Kundotty Police Station limits till the prosecution files the charge sheet. 2. The State has filed this appeal for cancellation of bail on the 8th of November. Summons could be served only on the 16th of November and after one adjournment to suit the counsel for both sides, this application was heard on the 29th November. 3. Shri Chettur Sankaran Nair, the State Prosecutor, submitted that the accused, being a police constable, is likely to tamper with the evidence, when most of these witnesses are either his subordinates in the police station or petty traders and others in the vicinity who cannot afford to fall from his grace. He proceeded to state that a condition that the petitioner shall not enter the Kundotty Police Station, in this case, serves no useful purpose, as effective police surveillance is impossible and a deterrent note should have been struck in a case where crime is committed by a member of the uniformed service itself. 4. Shri M. N. Sukumaran Nair submitted that different considerations arise when bail granted is sought to be cancelled and bail can be cancelled only if a person was arrested for an offence involving national security or the like as in State v. Jaspal Singh Gill (AIR 1984 SC. 1503) or on account of supervening circumstances after the arrest, as noticed in Delhi Admn. v. Sanjay Gandhi (AIR. 1978 SC. 961). 1503) or on account of supervening circumstances after the arrest, as noticed in Delhi Admn. v. Sanjay Gandhi (AIR. 1978 SC. 961). He stressed that there is no case that the conduct of the petitioner after his arrest, or after bail was granted to him on the 5th of November, was such that he had forfeited his right to continue to be free and when the investigation is almost complete, there is no necessity to send the petitioner back to judicial custody. He also pleads that the petitioner is innocent of the offence of murder 5. The power to cancel bail is contained in S.439(2) of the Code under which: "A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody." There are three decisions of the Supreme Court which throw considerable light on the jurisdiction so exercised and I shall profitably refer to the relevant observation in Sanjay Gandhi's case (AIR. 1978 SC. 961) where it was observed thus: "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 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 bis 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." 6. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR. 1978 SC. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR. 1978 SC. 179) it was held thus: "When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the High Court." "In the present case the Sessions Judge having admitted the appellants to bail by recording his reasons we will have to see whether that order was vitiated by any serious infirmity for which it was right and proper for the High Court, in the interest of justice, to interfere with his discretion in granting the bail. Ordinarily the High Court will not exercise its discretion to interfere with an order of bail granted by the Sessions Judge in favour of an accused." 7. In State v. Jaspal Singh Gill (AIR. 1984 SC. 1503) it was observed thus: "The gravity of the offences is quite obvious. They relate to the security of the State. Espionage and intelligence are utilised to pass on information regarding military plans, equipment, technical advances etc. of one country to another. Naturally passing on of such information from our country to a foreign country is bound to be most harmful to our country. The persons accused along with the respondent are admittedly ex-military men well versed in military affairs who are capable of establishing bridges with the sensitive sections of the defence services. The respondent is also alleged to be having some dealings with the defence department and Jasbir Singh is in the employment of the respondent. The allegations made by the prosecution which no doubt have still to be established at the trial suggest that the respondent and the persons accused along with him are persons of easy conscience in so far as the interests and security of the country are concerned. The current situation in the country is such that it can easily be exploited by unscrupulous men to their own or to some foreign power's advantage. These aspects of the case do not appear to have been considered by the High Court." 8. Police Station is "no rest house for revolt". The current situation in the country is such that it can easily be exploited by unscrupulous men to their own or to some foreign power's advantage. These aspects of the case do not appear to have been considered by the High Court." 8. Police Station is "no rest house for revolt". Guardians of peace cannot be breakers of law. A policeman is the community's sentry on duty. He breathes a sense of security and enjoys immunity when he protects the community. He however, forfeits his address in society when he betrays that trust and confidence. These factors have to be taken note of especially when a policeman on duty is accused of the offence of murder. Graver questions of far reaching consequence arise in the grant of bail in such cases. The lower court has not considered these aspects when it granted bail so soon after his arrest. The fact that he has not been permitted to enter Kundotty Police Station limits serves, in the circumstances, no useful purpose. 9. Lawlessness inside the police station indicates a helplessness likely to shake the confidence in the maintenance of law and order in this State. Under the circumstances, when the State apprehends that if he is free at this stage, he may "interfere with the course justice" and tamper with the evidence, it cannot be lightly brushed aside. It has to be remembered that the witnesses are bis colleagues and subordinates or petty traders in the same station or in the neighbourhood over whom his prevailing authority and position of influence remain entrenched at least for some time. The State Prosecutor brought to my notice that more than 75 percent of the murder cases from Malappuram District are lost in court as 90 percent of the witnesses turn hostile. The petitioner may be guilty or not guilty. Let the law take its course and vindicate his innocence. Till then at least, let discipline of the law prevail 10. The order of the Sessions Judge is thus vitiated by serious infirmity in ignoring these vital aspects. The order granting bail has thus to be reviewed by this court and the order is set aside. The accused shall surrender immediately and he will be taken to judicial custody forthwith. He may move for bail after the charge-sheet is filed. Allowed.